You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output.
Click here to find out more.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Impact of systolic blood pressure limits on the diagnostic value of triage algorithms
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Scandinavian Journal of Trauma, Resuscitation and Emergency Medicine, December 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s13049-017-0461-2 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Tobias Neidel, Nicolas Salvador, Axel R. Heller |
| Abstract |
Major incidents are characterized by a lack of resources compared to an overwhelming number of casualties, requiring a prioritization of medical treatment. Triage algorithms are an essential tool for prioritizing the urgency of treatment for patients, but the evidence to support one over another is very limited. We determined the influence of blood pressure limits on the diagnostic value of triage algorithms, considering if pulse should be palpated centrally or peripherally. We used a database representing 500 consecutive HEMS patients. Each patient was allocated a triage category (T1/red, T2/yellow, T3/green) by a group of experienced doctors in disaster medicine, independent of any algorithm. mSTaRT, ASAV, Field Triage Score (FTS), Care Flight (CF), "Model Bavaria" and two Norwegian algorithms (Nor and TAS), all containing the question "Pulse palpable?", were translated into Excel commands, calculating the triage category for each patient automatically. We used 5 blood pressure limits ranging from 130 to 60 mmHg to determine palpable pulse. The resulting triage categories were analyzed with respect to sensitivity, specificity and Youden Index (J) separately for trauma and non-trauma patients, and for all patients combined. For the entire population of patients within all triage algorithms the Youden Index (J) was highest for T1 (J between 0,14 and 0,62). Combining trauma and non-trauma patients, the highest J was obtained by ASAV (J = 0,62 at 60 mmHg). ASAV scored the highest within trauma patients (J = 0,87 at 60 mmHg), whereas Model Bavaria (J = 0,54 at 80 mmHg) reached highest amongst non-trauma patients. FTS performed worst for all patients (J = 0,14 at 60 mmHg), showing a lower score for trauma patients (J = 0,0 at 60 mmHg). Change of blood pressure limits resulted in different diagnostic values of all algorithms. We demonstrate that differing blood pressure limits have a remarkable impact on diagnostic values of triage algorithms. Further research is needed to determine the lowest blood pressure value that is possible to palpate at a peripheral artery compared to a central artery. As a consequence, it might be important in which location pulses are palpated according to the algorithm at hand during triage of patients. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 50% |
| Unknown | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 50% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 50% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 27 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 27 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Doctoral Student | 5 | 19% |
| Student > Master | 5 | 19% |
| Student > Bachelor | 3 | 11% |
| Lecturer | 2 | 7% |
| Other | 1 | 4% |
| Other | 3 | 11% |
| Unknown | 8 | 30% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 12 | 44% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 4 | 15% |
| Arts and Humanities | 1 | 4% |
| Unspecified | 1 | 4% |
| Neuroscience | 1 | 4% |
| Other | 1 | 4% |
| Unknown | 7 | 26% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 06 December 2017.
All research outputs
#15,484,498
of 23,009,818 outputs
Outputs from Scandinavian Journal of Trauma, Resuscitation and Emergency Medicine
#1,027
of 1,264 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#266,409
of 439,388 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Scandinavian Journal of Trauma, Resuscitation and Emergency Medicine
#26
of 28 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,009,818 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,264 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.2. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 439,388 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 30th percentile – i.e., 30% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 28 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 3rd percentile – i.e., 3% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.