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.
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Longer time to antibiotics and higher mortality among septic patients with non-specific presentations -a cross sectional study of Emergency Department patients indicating that a screening tool may improve identification
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Scandinavian Journal of Trauma, Resuscitation and Emergency Medicine, January 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s13049-015-0193-0 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Ulrika Margareta Wallgren, Viktor Erik Antonsson, Maaret Kaarina Castrén, Lisa Kurland |
| Abstract |
The presentation of sepsis is varied and our hypotheses were that septic patients with non-specific presentations such as decreased general condition (DGC) have a less favourable outcome, and that a screening tool could increase identification of these patients. We aimed to: 1) assess time to antibiotics and in-hospital mortality among septic patients with ED chief complaint DGC, as compared with septic patients with other ED chief complaints, and 2) determine whether a screening tool could improve identification of septic patients with non-specific presentations such as DGC. Cross sectional study comparing time to antibiotics (Mann Whitney and Kaplan-Meier tests), and in-hospital mortality (logistic regression), between 61 septic patients with ED chief complaint DGC and 516 septic patients with other ED chief complaints. The sensitivity and specificity of the modified Robson screening tool was compared with that of ED doctor clinical judgment (McNemar's two related samples test) among 122 patients presenting to the ED with chief complaint DGC, of which 61 were discharged with ICD code sepsis. Septic patients presenting to the ED with the chief complaint DGC had a longer median time to antibiotics (05:26 h:minutes; IQR 4:00-10:40, vs. 03:56 h:minutes; IQR 2:21-7:32) and an increased in-hospital mortality (crude OR = 4.01; 95 % CI, 2.19-7.32), compared to septic patients with other ED chief complaints. This association remained significant when adjusting for sex, age, priority, comorbidity and fulfilment of the Robson score (OR 4.31; 95 % CI, 2.12-8.77). The modified Robson screening tool had a higher sensitivity (63.0 vs. 24.6 %, p < 0.001), but a lower specificity (68.3 vs. 100.0 %, p < 0.001), as compared to clinical judgment. This is, to the best of our knowledge, the first study comparing outcome of septic patients according to ED chief complaint. Septic patients presenting with a non-specific ED presentation, here exemplified as the chief complaint DGC, have a less favourable outcome. Our results indicate that implementation of a screening tool may increase the identification of septic patients. The results indicate that septic patients presenting with ED chief complaint DGC constitute a vulnerable patient group with delayed time to antibiotics and high in-hospital mortality. Furthermore, the results support that implementation of a screening tool may be beneficial to improve identification of these patients. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 60 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 59 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Other | 8 | 13% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 7 | 12% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 6 | 10% |
| Student > Bachelor | 6 | 10% |
| Researcher | 5 | 8% |
| Other | 18 | 30% |
| Unknown | 10 | 17% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 22 | 37% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 12 | 20% |
| Engineering | 3 | 5% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 2 | 3% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 2 | 3% |
| Other | 8 | 13% |
| Unknown | 11 | 18% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 22 May 2018.
All research outputs
#20,300,248
of 22,837,982 outputs
Outputs from Scandinavian Journal of Trauma, Resuscitation and Emergency Medicine
#1,213
of 1,258 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#330,512
of 393,663 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Scandinavian Journal of Trauma, Resuscitation and Emergency Medicine
#19
of 20 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,837,982 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,258 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.2. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 393,663 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 20 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.