↓ Skip to main content

Are you Ernest Shackleton, the polar explorer? Refining the criteria for delirium and brain dysfunction in sepsis

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Intensive Care, March 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (66th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (64th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
8 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
2 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
58 Mendeley
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.
Title
Are you Ernest Shackleton, the polar explorer? Refining the criteria for delirium and brain dysfunction in sepsis
Published in
Journal of Intensive Care, March 2017
DOI 10.1186/s40560-017-0218-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

Frank Anthony Rasulo, Giuseppe Bellelli, Eugene Wesley Ely, Alessandro Morandi, Pratik Pandharipande, Nicola Latronico

Abstract

The Third International Consensus Definitions for Sepsis and Septic Shock has recently defined sepsis as a life-threatening organ dysfunction caused by a dysregulated host response to infection. Organ dysfunctions in this consensus definition were identified as an organ-specific Sequential [Sepsis-related] Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score ≥ 2 points. The quick SOFA (qSOFA) considers altered mentation indicating brain dysfunction when the Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) score is ≤13 or ≤14. However, concern has been expressed that the revised criteria may lead to a failure in recognizing the signs of potentially lethal organ dysfunction and thus sepsis. Patients with delirium have a fluctuating course, and GCS can be normal or only slightly reduced at the time when signs of delirium are already present. We here report an illustrative case showing how an acute, initially unrecognized, urinary tract infection caused acute brain dysfunction with profound behavioral and cognitive dysfunction despite normal GCS, hence not meeting the criteria for sepsis.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 58 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 58 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 7 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 7 12%
Student > Postgraduate 6 10%
Other 5 9%
Professor 5 9%
Other 13 22%
Unknown 15 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 33 57%
Neuroscience 4 7%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 5%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 3%
Physics and Astronomy 1 2%
Other 3 5%
Unknown 12 21%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 07 June 2020.
All research outputs
#7,235,327
of 25,626,416 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Intensive Care
#309
of 582 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#108,147
of 321,746 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Intensive Care
#6
of 14 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,626,416 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 71st percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 582 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.9. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% 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 321,746 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 66% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 14 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 64% of its contemporaries.