↓ Skip to main content

The prognostic performance of qSOFA for community-acquired pneumonia

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Intensive Care, August 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (87th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
24 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
25 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
30 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 prognostic performance of qSOFA for community-acquired pneumonia
Published in
Journal of Intensive Care, August 2018
DOI 10.1186/s40560-018-0307-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Fumiaki Tokioka, Hiroshi Okamoto, Akio Yamazaki, Akihiro Itou, Tadashi Ishida

Abstract

Quick Sepsis-related Organ Failure Assessment (qSOFA) is a new screening system for sepsis. The prognostic performance of qSOFA for patients with suspected infections outside the intensive care unit (ICU) is similar to that of full SOFA; however, its performance for community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) has not yet been evaluated in detail.The objectives of the present study were to compare the prognostic performance of qSOFA with existing pneumonia severity scores, such as CURB-65 (confusion, blood urea nitrogen > 19 mg/dL, respiratory rate ≥ 30/min, systolic blood pressure < 90 mmHg, or diastolic blood pressure ≤ 60 mmHg, age ≥ 65 years) and the pneumonia severity index (PSI), and examine its usefulness for predicting mortality and ICU admission in patients with CAP of high severity and mortality that requires hospitalization. We performed a secondary analysis of data from a prospective observational study of adult patients who were admitted to our hospital between October 2010 and June 2016. We compared the prognostic performance of qSOFA, CURB-65, and PSI for predicting in-hospital mortality and ICU admission using the C statistics. The median age of the 1045 enrolled patients was 77 (68-83) years, and 71.4% were males. The in-hospital mortality and ICU admission rates of the entire cohort were 6.1 and 7.9%, respectively. All scores were significantly higher in non-survivors and ICU admission patients than in survivors and non-ICU admission patients (p < 0.001). The C statistics of qSOFA for predicting in-hospital mortality was 0.69 (95% CI 0.63-0.75), and no significant differences were observed between CURB-65 (C statistics, 0.75; 95% CI 0.69-0.81) and PSI (C statistics, 0.74; 95% CI 0.69-0.80). The C statistics of qSOFA for predicting ICU admission was 0.76 (95% CI 0.71-0.80), and no significant differences were noted between CURB-65 (C statistics, 0.73; 95% CI 0.67-0.79) and PSI (C statistics, 0.72; 95% CI 0.66-0.78). Regarding hospitalized CAP, the prognostic performance of qSOFA for in-hospital mortality and ICU admission was not significantly different from those of CURB-65 and PSI. qSOFA only requires a few items and vital signs, and, thus, may be particularly useful for emergency department or non-respiratory specialists.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 24 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 30 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 30 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 7 23%
Student > Bachelor 5 17%
Other 5 17%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 10%
Lecturer 2 7%
Other 4 13%
Unknown 4 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 18 60%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 3%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 3%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 3%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 3%
Other 3 10%
Unknown 5 17%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 17. 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 16 August 2018.
All research outputs
#1,530,206
of 19,240,244 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Intensive Care
#74
of 445 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#37,116
of 290,571 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Intensive Care
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 19,240,244 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 92nd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 445 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.4. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% 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 290,571 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% 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