↓ Skip to main content

Extracorporeal therapies in pediatric severe sepsis: findings from the pediatric health-care information system

Overview of attention for article published in Critical Care, December 2015
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 (86th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (53rd percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
9 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
45 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
89 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
Extracorporeal therapies in pediatric severe sepsis: findings from the pediatric health-care information system
Published in
Critical Care, December 2015
DOI 10.1186/s13054-015-1105-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Amanda Ruth, Courtney E. McCracken, James D. Fortenberry, Kiran B. Hebbar

Abstract

Pediatric severe sepsis (PSS) continues to be a major health problem. Extracorporeal therapies (ETs), defined as extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) and RRenal replacement therapyenal replacement therapy (RRT), are becoming more available for utilization in a variety of health conditions. We aim to describe (1) rates of utilization of ET in PSS, (2) outcomes for PSS patients receiving ET, and (3) epidemiologic characteristics of patients receiving ET. We conducted a retrospective review of a prospectively collected database. Data from the Pediatric Health Information System (PHIS) database collected by the Children's Hospital Association (CHA) from 2004-2012 from 43 US children's hospitals' pediatric intensive care units (PICUs) were used. Patients with PSS were defined by (1) International Classification of Diseases, 9th Revision (ICD-9) codes reflecting severe sepsis and septic shock and (2) ICD-9 codes of infection and organ dysfunction as defined by updated Angus criteria. Among the patients with PSS, those with a PHIS flag of ECMO or RRT were identified further as our main cohort. From 2004 to 2012, 636,842 patients were identified from 43 hospitals, and PSS prevalence was 7.7 % (49,153 patients). Nine point eight percent (4795 patients) received at least one form of ET, and the associated mortality rate was 39 %. Mortality rates were 47.8 % for those who received ECMO, 32.3 % in RRT, and 58.0 % in RRT + ECMO. Underlying co-morbidities were found in 3745 patients (78.1 %) who received ET (81 % for ECMO, 77.9 % in RRT, and 71.2 % in those who received both). There was a statistically significant increase in ECMO utilization in patients with at least three organ dysfunctions from 2004 to 2012 (6.9 % versus 10.3 %, P < 0.001) while RRT use declined (24.5 % versus 13.2 %, P < 0.001). After 2009, there was a significant increase in ECMO utilization (3.6 % in 2004-2008 versus 4.0 % in 2009-2012, P = 0.004). ECMO and RRT were used simultaneously in only 500 patients with PSS (1 %). ETs were used in a significant portion of PSS patients with multiple organ dysfunction syndrome (MODS) during this time period. Mortality was significant and increased with increasing organ failure. ECMO use in PSS patients with MODS increased from 2004 to 2012. Further evaluation of ET use in PSS is warranted.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 9 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 89 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 1%
Japan 1 1%
Italy 1 1%
Egypt 1 1%
Unknown 85 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 20 22%
Researcher 11 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 9%
Student > Postgraduate 7 8%
Professor > Associate Professor 6 7%
Other 20 22%
Unknown 17 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 52 58%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 5 6%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 3%
Social Sciences 2 2%
Other 2 2%
Unknown 20 22%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 11. 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 20 August 2020.
All research outputs
#3,335,595
of 25,371,288 outputs
Outputs from Critical Care
#2,685
of 6,554 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#52,649
of 395,397 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Care
#219
of 466 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,371,288 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 86th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,554 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.8. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 59% 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 395,397 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 86% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 466 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 53% of its contemporaries.