↓ Skip to main content

Does galactomannan testing increase diagnostic accuracy for IPA in the ICU? A prospective observational study

Overview of attention for article published in Critical Care, May 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (73rd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
10 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
41 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
84 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
Does galactomannan testing increase diagnostic accuracy for IPA in the ICU? A prospective observational study
Published in
Critical Care, May 2016
DOI 10.1186/s13054-016-1326-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

Maria Schroeder, Marcel Simon, Juri Katchanov, Charles Wijaya, Holger Rohde, Martin Christner, Azien Laqmani, Dominic Wichmann, Valentin Fuhrmann, Stefan Kluge

Abstract

An algorithm for distinguishing invasive pulmonary aspergillosis (IPA) in critically ill patients (AspICU) has been proposed but not tested. This was a prospective observational study applying the AspICU protocol to patients with positive Aspergillus culture (PAC group) and those with negative aspergillus culture but positive galactomannan test in respiratory tract samples (only positive galactomannan (OPG group)). Patients underwent a standardized diagnostic workup with bronchoscopy, computed tomography (CT), and galactomannan determination in serum and bronchoalveolar lavage fluid (BALF). We included 85 patients in the study. Of these, 43 had positive aspergillus cultures and 42 patients had only a positive galactomannan test. There were no statistically significant differences in baseline characteristics, underlying conditions or ICU scores between the two groups. The galactomannan titre in BALF was significantly higher in the positive aspergillus culture (PAC) group (enzyme immunoassay (EIA) 5.9, IQR 3.2-5.7) than in the OPG group (EIA 1.7, IQR 0.9-4.5) (p < 0.001). Classic features of IPA were detected on CT in 37.5 % and 36.6 % of patients in the PAC and OPG groups, respectively. There were no statistically significant differences between the PAC and the OPG group in relation to AspICU or European Organization for the Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) criteria. A positive aspergillus culture was a stronger trigger for initiating antimycotic treatment than positive BALF galactomannan: 88.4 % of patients in the PAC group were regarded by clinicians as having IPA and received antimycotic treatment as opposed to 59.5 % in the OPG group (p = 0.002). The 180-day mortality was 58.1 % in the PAC group and 59.5 % in the OPG group. The inclusion of BALF galactomannan as an additional entry criterion for the AspICU clinical algorithm could increase the diagnostic sensitivity for IPA in ICU patients. The study was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (registration number NCT01866020 ) on 27 May 2013.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 10 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 84 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 1%
Netherlands 1 1%
Unknown 82 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 9 11%
Student > Postgraduate 8 10%
Researcher 7 8%
Student > Bachelor 7 8%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 8%
Other 20 24%
Unknown 26 31%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 42 50%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 6%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 1%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 1%
Environmental Science 1 1%
Other 4 5%
Unknown 30 36%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 15 May 2016.
All research outputs
#6,298,484
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from Critical Care
#3,627
of 6,554 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#85,801
of 319,075 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Care
#93
of 108 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 75th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
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 44th percentile – i.e., 44% 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 319,075 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 108 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 13th percentile – i.e., 13% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.