↓ Skip to main content

Evaluation of the effect of methamphetamine on traumatic injury complications and outcomes

Overview of attention for article published in Addiction Science & Clinical Practice, March 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
2 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
6 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
32 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
Evaluation of the effect of methamphetamine on traumatic injury complications and outcomes
Published in
Addiction Science & Clinical Practice, March 2018
DOI 10.1186/s13722-018-0112-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Michael M. Neeki, Fanglong Dong, Lidia Liang, Jake Toy, Braeden Carrico, Nina Jabourian, Arnold Sin, Farabi Hussain, Sharon Brown, Keyvan Safdari, Rodney Borger, David Wong

Abstract

This study investigates the impact of methamphetamine use on trauma patient outcomes. This retrospective study analyzed patients between 18 and 55 years old presenting to a single trauma center in San Bernardino County, CA who sustained traumatic injury during the 10-year study period (January 1st, 2005 to December 31st, 2015). Routine serum ethanol levels and urine drug screens (UDS) were completed on all trauma patients. Exclusion criteria included patients with an elevated serum ethanol level (> 0 mg/dL). Those who screened positive on UDS for only methamphetamine and negative for cocaine and cannabis (MA(+)) were compared to those with a triple negative UDS for methamphetamine, cocaine, and cannabis (MA(-)). The primary outcome studied was the impact of a methamphetamine positive drug screen on hospital mortality. Secondary outcomes included length of stay (LOS), heart rate, systolic and diastolic blood pressure (SBP and DBP, respectively), and total amount of blood products utilized during hospitalization. To analyze the effect of methamphetamine, age, gender, injury severity score, and mechanism of injury (blunt vs. penetrating) were matched between MA(-) and MA(+) through a propensity matching algorithm. After exclusion, 2538 patients were included in the final analysis; 449 were patients in the MA(+) group and 2089 patients in the MA(-) group. A selection of 449 MA(-) patients were matched with the MA(+) group based on age, gender, injury severity score, and mechanism of injury. This led to a final sample size of 898 patients with 449 patients in each group. No statistically significant change was observed in hospital mortality. Notably, a methamphetamine positive drug screen was associated with a longer LOS (median of 4 vs. 3 days in MA(+) and MA(-), respectively, p < 0.0001), an increased heart rate at the scene (103 vs. 94 bpm for MA(+) and MA(-), respectively, p = 0.0016), and an increased heart rate upon arrival to the trauma center (100 vs. 94 bpm for MA(+) and MA(-), respectively, p < 0.0001). Moreover, the MA(+) group had decreased SBP at the scene compared to the MA(-) group (127 vs. 132 bpm for MA(+) and MA(-), respectively, p = 0.0149), but SBP was no longer statistically different when patients arrived at the trauma center (p = 0.3823). There was no significant difference in DBP or in blood products used. Methamphetamine positive drug screens in trauma patients were not associated with an increase in hospital mortality; however, a methamphetamine positive drug screen was associated with a longer LOS and an increased heart rate.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 32 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 32 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 7 22%
Researcher 7 22%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 13%
Other 2 6%
Student > Master 2 6%
Other 2 6%
Unknown 8 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 11 34%
Psychology 3 9%
Social Sciences 3 9%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 6%
Neuroscience 2 6%
Other 3 9%
Unknown 8 25%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 29 March 2018.
All research outputs
#7,340,841
of 12,728,337 outputs
Outputs from Addiction Science & Clinical Practice
#162
of 225 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#139,451
of 272,966 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Addiction Science & Clinical Practice
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,728,337 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 225 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.3. This one is in the 24th percentile – i.e., 24% 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 272,966 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them