↓ Skip to main content

External validation of prognostic rules for early post-pulmonary embolism mortality: assessment of a claims-based and three clinical-based approaches

Overview of attention for article published in Thrombosis Journal, March 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
12 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
15 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
External validation of prognostic rules for early post-pulmonary embolism mortality: assessment of a claims-based and three clinical-based approaches
Published in
Thrombosis Journal, March 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12959-016-0081-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Erin R. Weeda, Christine G. Kohn, Gregory J. Fermann, W. Frank Peacock, Christopher Tanner, Daniel McGrath, Concetta Crivera, Jeff R. Schein, Craig I. Coleman

Abstract

Studies show the In-hospital Mortality for Pulmonary embolism using Claims daTa (IMPACT) rule can accurately identify pulmonary embolism (PE) patients at low-risk of early mortality in a retrospective setting using only claims for the index admission. We sought to externally validate IMPACT, Pulmonary Embolism Severity Index (PESI), simplified PESI (sPESI) and Hestia for predicting early mortality. We identified consecutive adults admitted for objectively-confirmed PE between 10/21/2010 and 5/12/2015. Patients undergoing thrombolysis/embolectomy within 48 h were excluded. All-cause in-hospital and 30 day mortality (using available Social Security Death Index data through January 2014) were assessed and prognostic accuracies of IMPACT, PESI, sPESI and Hestia were determined. Twenty-one (2.6 %) of the 807 PE patients died before discharge. All rules classified 26.1-38.3 % of patients as low-risk for early mortality. Fatality among low-risk patients was 0 % (sPESI and Hestia), 0.4 % (IMPACT) and 0.6 % (PESI). IMPACT's sensitivity was 95.2 % (95 % confidence interval [CI] = 74.1-99.8 %), and the sensitivities of clinical rules ranged from 91 (PESI)-100 % (sPESI and Hestia). Specificities of all rules ranged between 26.8 and 39.1 %. Of 573 consecutive patients in the 30 day mortality analysis, 33 (5.8 %) died. All rules classified 27.9-38.0 % of patients as low-risk, and fatality occurred in 0 (Hestia)-1.4 % (PESI) of low-risk patients. IMPACT's sensitivity was 97.0 % (95%CI = 82.5-99.8 %), while sensitivities for clinical rules ranged from 91 (PESI)-100 % (Hestia). Specificities of rules ranged between 29.6 and 39.8 %. In this analysis, IMPACT identified low-risk PE patients with similar accuracy as clinical rules. While not intended for prospective clinical decision-making, IMPACT appears useful for identification of low-risk PE patient in retrospective claims-based studies.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 15 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 15 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 7 47%
Researcher 3 20%
Student > Ph. D. Student 1 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 1 7%
Student > Bachelor 1 7%
Other 1 7%
Unknown 1 7%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 9 60%
Environmental Science 1 7%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 7%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 7%
Unknown 3 20%
Attention Score in Context

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 19 June 2019.
All research outputs
#18,937,691
of 24,135,931 outputs
Outputs from Thrombosis Journal
#283
of 375 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#209,652
of 304,254 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Thrombosis Journal
#4
of 4 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,135,931 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 375 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.4. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% 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 304,254 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 4 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.