↓ Skip to main content

The “Petechiae in children” (PiC) study: evaluating potential clinical decision rules for the management of feverish children with non-blanching rashes, including the role of point of care testing…

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Pediatrics, July 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (92nd percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
2 blogs
twitter
38 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
7 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
81 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
The “Petechiae in children” (PiC) study: evaluating potential clinical decision rules for the management of feverish children with non-blanching rashes, including the role of point of care testing for Procalcitonin & Neisseria meningitidis DNA – a study protocol
Published in
BMC Pediatrics, July 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12887-018-1220-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Thomas Waterfield, Mark D. Lyttle, Derek Fairley, James Mckenna, Kerry Woolfall, Fiona Lynn, Julie-Ann Maney, Damian Roland, Aoife Weir, Michael D. Shields

Abstract

Children commonly present to Emergency Departments (ED) with a non-blanching rash in the context of a feverish illness. While most have a self-limiting viral illness, this combination of features potentially represents invasive serious bacterial infection, including meningococcal septicaemia. A paucity of definitive diagnostic testing creates diagnostic uncertainty for clinicians; a safe approach mandates children without invasive disease are often admitted and treated with broad-spectrum antibiotics. Conversely, a cohort of children still experience significant mortality and morbidity due to late diagnosis. Current management is based on evidence which predates (i) the introduction of meningococcal B and C vaccines and (ii) availability of point of care testing (POCT) for procalcitonin (PCT) and Neisseria meningitidis DNA. This PiC study is a prospective diagnostic accuracy study evaluating (i) rapid POCT for PCT and N. meningitidis DNA and (ii) performance of existing clinical practice guidelines (CPG) for feverish children with non-blanching rash. All children presenting to the ED with a history of fever and non-blanching rash are eligible. Children are managed as normal, with detailed prospective collection of data pertinent to CPGs, and a throat swab and blood used for rapid POCT. The study is running over 2 years and aims to recruit 300 children. Report on the diagnostic accuracy of POCT for (i) N. meningitidis DNA and (ii) PCT in the diagnosis of early MD Report on the diagnostic accuracy of POCT for PCT in the diagnosis of Invasive bacterial infection Secondary objectives: Evaluate the performance accuracy of existing CPGs Evaluate cost-effectiveness of available diagnostic testing strategies Explore views of (i) families and (ii) clinicians on research without prior consent using qualitative methodology Report on the aetiology of NBRs in children with a feverish illness DISCUSSION: The PiC study will provide important information for policy makers regarding the value of POCT and on the utility and cost of emerging diagnostic strategies. The study will also identify which elements of existing CPGs may merit inclusion in any future study to derive clinical decision rules for this population. NCT03378258 . Retrospectively registered on December 19, 2017.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 38 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 81 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 81 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 17 21%
Student > Bachelor 11 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 12%
Researcher 7 9%
Other 7 9%
Other 13 16%
Unknown 16 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 21 26%
Nursing and Health Professions 9 11%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 5%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 4 5%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 4 5%
Other 14 17%
Unknown 25 31%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 36. 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 27 August 2020.
All research outputs
#832,393
of 20,513,123 outputs
Outputs from BMC Pediatrics
#66
of 2,581 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#20,771
of 296,268 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Pediatrics
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 20,513,123 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,581 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.1. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its peers.
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 296,268 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its contemporaries.
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