↓ Skip to main content

Comparison of total, salivary and calculated free cortisol levels in patients with severe sepsis

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Intensive Care, January 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (56th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
7 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
29 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
Comparison of total, salivary and calculated free cortisol levels in patients with severe sepsis
Published in
Journal of Intensive Care, January 2016
DOI 10.1186/s40560-015-0125-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Gulsah Elbuken, Zuleyha Karaca, Fatih Tanriverdi, Kursad Unluhizarci, Murat Sungur, Mehmet Doganay, Fahrettin Kelestimur

Abstract

The purposes of the study were to compare serum total cortisol (STC), salivary cortisol (SaC) and calculated free cortisol (cFC) levels at baseline and after the adrenocorticotrophic hormone (ACTH) stimulation test in patients with severe sepsis (SS) and determine the suitability of use of SaC and cFC levels instead of STC for the diagnosis of adrenal insufficiency (AI) in patients with SS. And secondary aims of this study were to compare these parameters in patients with SS with healthy controls and check their effects on survival status of the patients. Thirty patients with SS (15 men and 15 women) were compared with 16 healthy controls. Low-dose (1 μg) ACTH stimulation test was performed to the patients on the first, seventh and 28th days of diagnosis of SS, but in control group, 1 μg ACTH stimulation test was performed only once. STC, SaC and cFC levels were measured during ACTH stimulation test. Patients were categorized as having low or high baseline STC according to a cut-off level of 10 μg/dL. In high STC group, baseline and peak SaC levels were found to be 2.3 (0.2-9.0) and 3.4 (0.5-17.8) μg/dL on D1 and 1.1 (0.8-4.6) and 2.6 (1.3-2.9) μg/dL on D7, respectively. In the control group, baseline and peak SaC levels were 0.4 (0.1-1.4) and 1.1 (0.4-2.5) μg/dL, respectively. Baseline and peak SaC levels after ACTH stimulation were found to be higher in high STC group than in controls, but they were found to be similar in low STC and control groups. In high STC group, cFC levels were 0.3 (0.1-0.3) and 0.4 (0.3-0.7) μg/dL on D1 and 0.2 (0.1-0.3) and 0.4 (0.1-0.7) μg/dL on D7, respectively. In the control group, baseline and peak cFC levels were 1.7 (0.4-1.9) and 1.8 (1.0-6.6) μg/dL, respectively. cFC levels were found to be lower in patients with SS subgroups than in the control group. Baseline and stimulated STC, SaC and cFC levels did not differ according to the survival status. SaC, cFC and STC levels were found to be correlated with each other. SS is associated with increased SaC, but decreased cFC levels when baseline STC is assumed to be sufficient. When STC level is assumed to be insufficient, SaC levels remain unchanged, but cFC levels are decreased. Lower STC levels is not associated with increased mortality in patients with SS. More data are needed in order to suggest the use of SaC and cFC instead of STC. ClinicalTrials.gov No: NCT02589431.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 29 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 29 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 14%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 10%
Student > Master 3 10%
Student > Bachelor 2 7%
Researcher 2 7%
Other 4 14%
Unknown 11 38%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 11 38%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 10%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 7%
Immunology and Microbiology 1 3%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 3%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 11 38%
Attention Score in Context

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 26 January 2016.
All research outputs
#13,759,606
of 22,837,982 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Intensive Care
#332
of 514 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#195,659
of 393,791 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Intensive Care
#6
of 16 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,837,982 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 514 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.6. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% 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 393,791 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 16 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 56% of its contemporaries.