↓ Skip to main content

Should lower respiratory tract secretions from intensive care patients be systematically screened for influenza virus during the influenza season?

Overview of attention for article published in Critical Care, June 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
29 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
45 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
Should lower respiratory tract secretions from intensive care patients be systematically screened for influenza virus during the influenza season?
Published in
Critical Care, June 2012
DOI 10.1186/cc11387
Pubmed ID
Authors

Maddalena Giannella, Belen Rodríguez-Sánchez, Paula López Roa, Pilar Catalán, Patricia Muñoz, Darío García de Viedma, Emilio Bouza, the Gregorio Marañón Task Force for Pneumonia (GANG)

Abstract

ABSTRACT: INTRODUCTION: Influenza is easily overlooked in intensive care units (ICUs), particularly in patients with alternative causes of respiratory failure or in those who acquire influenza during their ICU stay. METHODS: We performed a prospective study of patients admitted to three adult ICUs of our hospital from December 2010 to February 2011. All tracheal aspirate (TA) samples sent to the microbiology department were systematically screened for influenza. We defined influenza as unsuspected if testing was not requested and the patient was not receiving empirical antiviral therapy after sample collection. RESULTS: We received TA samples from 105 patients. Influenza was detected in 31 patients and was classified as unsuspected in 15 (48.4%) patients, and as hospital acquired in 13 (42%) patients. Suspected and unsuspected cases were compared, and significant differences were found for age (53 versus 69 median years), severe respiratory failure (68.8% versus 20%), surgery (6.3% versus 60%), median days of ICU stay before diagnosis (1 versus 4), nosocomial infection (18.8% versus 66.7%), cough (93.8% versus 53.3%), localized infiltrate on chest radiograph (6.3% versus 40%), median days to antiviral treatment (2 versus 9), pneumonia (93.8% versus 53.3%), and acute respiratory distress syndrome (75% versus 26.7%). Multivariate analysis showed admission to the surgical ICU (odds ratio (OR), 37.1; 95% confidence interval (CI), 2.1 to 666.6; P = 0.01) and localized infiltrate on chest radiograph (OR, 27.8; 95% CI, 1.3 to 584.1; P = 0.03) to be independent risk factors for unsuspected influenza. Overall mortality at 30 days was 29%. ICU admission for severe respiratory failure was an independent risk factor for poor outcome. CONCLUSION: During the influenza season, almost one third of critical patients with suspected lower respiratory tract infection had influenza, and in 48.4%, the influenza was unsuspected. Lower respiratory samples from adult ICUs should be systematically screened for influenza during seasonal epidemics.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 45 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Brazil 2 4%
France 1 2%
Unknown 42 93%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 11 24%
Student > Postgraduate 9 20%
Student > Bachelor 4 9%
Other 4 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 7%
Other 6 13%
Unknown 8 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 25 56%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 9%
Immunology and Microbiology 3 7%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 4%
Social Sciences 1 2%
Other 1 2%
Unknown 9 20%
Attention Score in Context

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 16 June 2012.
All research outputs
#16,045,990
of 25,368,786 outputs
Outputs from Critical Care
#5,210
of 6,554 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#110,552
of 181,090 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Care
#71
of 126 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,368,786 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% 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 18th percentile – i.e., 18% 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 181,090 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 126 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.