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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Prediction of functional outcome in patients with convulsive status epilepticus: the END-IT score
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Critical Care, February 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s13054-016-1221-9 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Qiong Gao, Tang-peng Ou-Yang, Xiao-long Sun, Feng Yang, Chen Wu, Tao Kang, Xiao-gang Kang, Wen Jiang |
| Abstract |
Prediction of the functional outcome for patients with convulsive status epilepticus (CSE) has been a challenge. The aim of this study was to characterize the prognostic factors and functional outcomes of patients after CSE in order to develop a practicable scoring system for outcome prediction. We performed a retrospective explorative analysis on consecutive patients diagnosed with CSE between March, 2008 and November, 2014 in a tertiary academic medical center in northwest China. The modified Rankin Scale (mRS) was used to measure the functional outcome at three months post discharge. A total of 132 CSE patients was included, with a median age of 25.5 years and 60.6 % were male. Three months post discharge, an unfavorable outcome with mRS of 3-6 was seen in 62 (47.0 %) patients, 25 (18.9 %) of whom died. Logistic regression analysis revealed that encephalitis (p = 0.029), nonconvulsive SE (p = 0.018), diazepam resistance (p = 0.005), image abnormalities (unilateral lesions, p = 0.027; bilateral lesions or diffuse cerebral edema, p < 0.001) and tracheal intubation (p = 0.032) were significant independent predictors for unfavorable outcomes. Based on the coefficients in the model, these predictors were assigned a value of 1 point each, with the exception of the image, creating a 6-point scoring system, which we refer to as END-IT, for the outcome prediction of CSE. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve for the END-IT score was 0.833 and using a cut-off point of 3 produced the highest sum sensitivity (83.9 %) and specificity (68.6 %). Compared with status epilepticus severity score (STESS) and Epidemiology-based Mortality score in SE (EMSE), END-IT score showed better discriminative power and predictive accuracy for the outcome prediction. We developed an END-IT score with a strong discriminative power for predicting the functional outcome of CSE patients. External prospective validation in different cohorts is needed for END-IT score. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 26 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 4 | 15% |
| South Africa | 2 | 8% |
| Greece | 1 | 4% |
| Ecuador | 1 | 4% |
| Colombia | 1 | 4% |
| United States | 1 | 4% |
| Japan | 1 | 4% |
| Bolivia, Plurinational State of | 1 | 4% |
| France | 1 | 4% |
| Other | 3 | 12% |
| Unknown | 10 | 38% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 17 | 65% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 6 | 23% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 2 | 8% |
| Scientists | 1 | 4% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 117 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Japan | 1 | <1% |
| Czechia | 1 | <1% |
| Switzerland | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 114 | 97% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Other | 19 | 16% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 16 | 14% |
| Student > Bachelor | 12 | 10% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 10 | 9% |
| Researcher | 10 | 9% |
| Other | 25 | 21% |
| Unknown | 25 | 21% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 61 | 52% |
| Neuroscience | 14 | 12% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 5 | 4% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 4 | 3% |
| Arts and Humanities | 2 | 2% |
| Other | 7 | 6% |
| Unknown | 24 | 21% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 16. 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 31 March 2016.
All research outputs
#2,288,538
of 25,466,764 outputs
Outputs from Critical Care
#2,005
of 6,567 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#35,652
of 313,079 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Care
#50
of 88 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,466,764 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 91st percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,567 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 69% 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 313,079 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 88% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 88 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.