↓ Skip to main content

Predicting mortality in the intensive care unit: a comparison of the University Health Consortium expected probability of mortality and the Mortality Prediction Model III

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Intensive Care, May 2016
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
5 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
12 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
35 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
Predicting mortality in the intensive care unit: a comparison of the University Health Consortium expected probability of mortality and the Mortality Prediction Model III
Published in
Journal of Intensive Care, May 2016
DOI 10.1186/s40560-016-0158-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

Angela K. M. Lipshutz, John R. Feiner, Barbara Grimes, Michael A. Gropper

Abstract

Quality benchmarks are increasingly being used to compare the delivery of healthcare, and may affect reimbursement in the future. The University Health Consortium (UHC) expected probability of mortality (EPM) is one such quality benchmark. Although the UHC EPM is used to compare quality across UHC members, it has not been prospectively validated in the critically ill. We aimed to define the performance characteristics of the UHC EPM in the critically ill and compare its ability to predict mortality with the Mortality Prediction Model III (MPM-III). The first 100 consecutive adult patients discharged from the hospital (including deaths) each quarter from January 1, 2009 until September 30, 2011 that had an intensive care unit (ICU) stay were included. We assessed model discrimination, calibration, and overall performance, and compared the two models using Bland-Altman plots. Eight hundred ninety-one patients were included. Both the UHC EPM and the MPM-III had excellent performance (Brier score 0.05 and 0.06, respectively). The area under the curve was good for both models (UHC 0.90, MPM-III 0.87, p = 0.28). Goodness of fit was statistically significant for both models (UHC p = 0.002, MPM-III p = 0.0003), but improved with logit transformation (UHC p = 0.41; MPM-III p = 0.07). The Bland-Altman plot showed good agreement at extremes of mortality, but agreement diverged as mortality approached 50 %. The UHC EPM exhibited excellent overall performance, calibration, and discrimination, and performed similarly to the MPM-III. Correlation between the two models was poor due to divergence when mortality was maximally uncertain.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 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 35 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 35 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 6 17%
Researcher 5 14%
Student > Master 5 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 11%
Student > Postgraduate 3 9%
Other 5 14%
Unknown 7 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 7 20%
Computer Science 5 14%
Engineering 4 11%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 9%
Neuroscience 2 6%
Other 5 14%
Unknown 9 26%
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 03 June 2016.
All research outputs
#13,236,704
of 22,873,031 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Intensive Care
#317
of 516 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#168,701
of 333,421 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Intensive Care
#10
of 17 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,873,031 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 516 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.7. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% 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 333,421 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 17 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.