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 |
Defining characteristics and risk indicators for diagnosing nursing home-acquired pneumonia and aspiration pneumonia in nursing home residents, using the electronically-modified Delphi Method
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Geriatrics, March 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12877-016-0231-4 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Vanessa Hollaar, Claar van der Maarel-Wierink, Gert-Jan van der Putten, Wil van der Sanden, Bert de Swart, Cees de Baat |
| Abstract |
In nursing home residents, it is not possible to distinguish pneumonia and aspiration pneumonia clinically. International literature reveals no consensus on which and how many characteristics and risk indicators must be present to diagnose (nursing home-acquired) pneumonia and aspiration pneumonia. The aim of this survey was to reach consensus among a panel of clinical medical experts in geriatrics and pulmonology about the characteristics required for diagnosing pneumonia, and about the risk indicators needed to consider the diagnosis aspiration pneumonia in nursing home residents with pneumonia. Literature review and three expert-rating iterations using the electronically-modified Delphi Method were carried out. After each expert rating iteration, data analysis was performed. Qualitative responses and additional (nursing home-acquired) pneumonia characteristics which were mentioned in reply to structured open-ended questions were summarised, whilst similar responses were combined and these combinations were ordered by frequency in order to use them in the next iteration. Characteristics which failed to reach consensus were considered as inconclusive and eliminated. Consensus was reached when at least 70 % of the participants agreed. Literature review revealed 16 currently used common characteristics for diagnosing (nursing home-acquired) pneumonia. No consensus was reached about characteristics and the number of characteristics required for diagnosing (nursing home-acquired) pneumonia. However, 57 % agreed that dyspnea, fever, deterioration of general functioning, tachypnea and crepitation with auscultation are the most important characteristics and the responses by the participants suggested that two or three characteristics should be present. Subsequently, 80 % of the participants agreed on the risk indicators dysphagia, choking incident, (history of) tube feeding, neurological disease and cognitive impairment for considering the diagnosis aspiration pneumonia in nursing home residents with pneumonia. No final consensus could be reached about which and how many characteristics are required for diagnosing pneumonia in nursing home residents. However, the results indicated that dyspnea, fever, deterioration of general functioning, tachypnea and crepitation with auscultation are characteristics of some importance and that at least two or three characteristics should be present. With regard to considering aspiration pneumonia in nursing home residents with pneumonia, final consensus was reached about the risk indicators dysphagia, choking incident, (history of) tube feeding, neurological disease and cognitive impairment. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Netherlands | 1 | 50% |
| Unknown | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 101 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 101 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 15 | 15% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 14 | 14% |
| Student > Master | 12 | 12% |
| Student > Bachelor | 11 | 11% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 8 | 8% |
| Other | 23 | 23% |
| Unknown | 18 | 18% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 33 | 33% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 24 | 24% |
| Social Sciences | 5 | 5% |
| Psychology | 3 | 3% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 2 | 2% |
| Other | 11 | 11% |
| Unknown | 23 | 23% |
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 01 May 2020.
All research outputs
#13,970,643
of 22,854,458 outputs
Outputs from BMC Geriatrics
#2,088
of 3,190 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#152,011
of 298,965 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Geriatrics
#32
of 50 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,854,458 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,190 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.5. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% 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 298,965 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 50 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.