↓ Skip to main content

Brain natriuretic peptide for prediction of mortality in patients with sepsis: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Overview of attention for article published in Critical Care, May 2012
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 (61st percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users
f1000
1 research highlight platform

Citations

dimensions_citation
88 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
102 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
Brain natriuretic peptide for prediction of mortality in patients with sepsis: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Published in
Critical Care, May 2012
DOI 10.1186/cc11331
Pubmed ID
Authors

Fei Wang, Youping Wu, Lu Tang, Weimin Zhu, Feng Chen, Tao Xu, Lulong Bo, Jinbao Li, Xiaoming Deng

Abstract

ABSTRACT: INTRODUCTION: Early identification of septic patients at high risk of dying remains a challenge. The prognostic role of brain natriuretic peptide (BNP) or N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) in septic patients remains controversial. The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to investigate the value of elevated BNP or NT-proBNP in predicting mortality in septic patients. METHODS: PubMed, Embase and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched (up to February 18, 2011). Studies were included if they had prospectively collected data on all-cause mortality in adult septic patients with either plasma BNP or NT-proBNP measurement. Studies that failed to construct a 2 × 2 table of results were excluded. Two authors independently determined the validity of included studies and extracted data. RESULTS: 12 studies with a total of 1,865 patients were included. Elevated natriuretic peptides were significantly associated with increased risk of mortality (odds ratio (OR) 8.65, 95% confidence interval (CI) 4.94 to 15.13, P < 0.00001). The association was consistent for BNP (OR 10.44, 95% CI 4.99 to 21.58, P < 0.00001) and NT-proBNP (OR 6.62, 95% CI 2.68 to 16.34, P < 0.0001). The pooled sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio, and negative likelihood ratio were 79% (95% CI 75 to 83), 60% (95% CI 57 to 62), 2.27 (95% CI 1.83 to 2.81) and 0.32 (95% CI 0.22 to 0.46), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggested that an elevated BNP or NT-proBNP level may prove to be a powerful predictor of mortality in septic patients. Future larger and more adequately powered prospective studies are warranted to clarify the assay standardization, the optimal cut-off, and the prognostic value of BNPs in conjunction with other biomarkers.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 102 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Brazil 2 2%
Spain 1 <1%
South Africa 1 <1%
Poland 1 <1%
Unknown 97 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 21 21%
Student > Postgraduate 16 16%
Other 12 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 10%
Professor 7 7%
Other 22 22%
Unknown 14 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 62 61%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 9 9%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 3 3%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 2%
Unspecified 2 2%
Other 9 9%
Unknown 15 15%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 July 2012.
All research outputs
#8,534,528
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from Critical Care
#4,396
of 6,554 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#59,520
of 176,350 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Care
#35
of 95 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,554 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.8. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% 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 176,350 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 95 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 61% of its contemporaries.