↓ Skip to main content

Benefit profile of recombinant human soluble thrombomodulin in sepsis-induced disseminated intravascular coagulation: a multicenter propensity score analysis

Overview of attention for article published in Critical Care, December 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (58th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
4 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
52 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
39 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
Benefit profile of recombinant human soluble thrombomodulin in sepsis-induced disseminated intravascular coagulation: a multicenter propensity score analysis
Published in
Critical Care, December 2015
DOI 10.1186/s13054-015-0810-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jumpei Yoshimura, Kazuma Yamakawa, Hiroshi Ogura, Yutaka Umemura, Hiroki Takahashi, Miki Morikawa, Yoshiaki Inoue, Satoshi Fujimi, Hiroshi Tanaka, Toshimitsu Hamasaki, Takeshi Shimazu

Abstract

The safety and efficacy of recombinant human soluble thrombomodulin (rhTM) have been demonstrated, with promising evidence suggestive of efficacy for patients with severe sepsis involving coagulopathy in a phase IIb randomized controlled trial. However, the benefit profiles of rhTM have not been elucidated. The purpose of this study was to explore whether patients with greater disease severity, determined according to the Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE) II and Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) scores, would experience treatment benefit from rhTM administration. This was a post hoc, subgroup analysis of a multicenter retrospective cohort study conducted in three Japanese tertiary referral hospitals. Patients with sepsis-induced disseminated intravascular coagulation (DIC) who required ventilator management were included. We stratified patients into several strata according to disease severity, determined by APACHE II and SOFA scores, using classification and regression trees for survival data. Intervention effects, expressed as hazard ratios (HR), were analyzed using Cox regression analysis adjusted for a propensity model to detect subgroup heterogeneity of the effects of rhTM on in-hospital mortality. Participants were 162 patients with sepsis-induced DIC; 68 of these patients received rhTM and 94 did not. After adjusting for imbalances, rhTM administration was significantly associated with reduced mortality in high-risk patients (APACHE II: 24 to 29; HR: 0.281; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.093 to 0.850; P = 0.025). A similar nonsignificant tendency was observed in the very high-risk subset (APACHE II: ≥30; HR: 0.529; 95% CI: 0.202 to 1.387; P = 0.195) but was not evident in the moderate-risk subset of patients (APACHE II: <24; HR: 0.814; 95% CI: 0.351 to 1.884; P = 0.630). A similar tendency was observed in analysis of SOFA scores (moderate-risk subset (SOFA: <11), P = 0.368; high-risk subset (SOFA: ≥11), P = 0.042). Survival benefit was observed with rhTM treatment in sepsis-induced DIC and high risk of death according to baseline APACHE II and SOFA scores.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 39 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 39 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 15%
Student > Master 6 15%
Researcher 6 15%
Other 5 13%
Lecturer 4 10%
Other 6 15%
Unknown 6 15%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 23 59%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 2 5%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 5%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 3%
Social Sciences 1 3%
Other 2 5%
Unknown 8 21%

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 05 March 2015.
All research outputs
#6,921,710
of 12,786,466 outputs
Outputs from Critical Care
#2,896
of 4,101 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#86,009
of 214,838 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Care
#42
of 61 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,786,466 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,101 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.3. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% 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 214,838 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 58% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 61 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 29th percentile – i.e., 29% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.