↓ Skip to main content

Prediction of severe community acquired pneumonia: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

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

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (95th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (97th percentile)

Citations

dimensions_citation
99 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
153 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
Prediction of severe community acquired pneumonia: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Published in
Critical Care, July 2012
DOI 10.1186/cc11447
Pubmed ID
Authors

Christophe Marti, Nicolas Garin, Olivier Grosgurin, Antoine Poncet, Christophe Combescure, Sebastian Carballo, Arnaud Perrier

Abstract

ABSTRACT: INTRODUCTION: Severity assessment and site-of-care decisions for patients with community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) are pivotal for patients' safety and adequate allocation of resources. Late admission to the intensive care unit (ICU) has been associated with increased mortality in CAP. We aimed to review and meta-analyze systematically the performance of clinical prediction rules to identify CAP patients requiring ICU admission or intensive treatment. METHODS: We systematically searched Medline, Embase, and the Cochrane Controlled Trials registry for clinical trials evaluating the performance of prognostic rules to predict the need for ICU admission, intensive treatment, or the occurrence of early mortality in patients with CAP. RESULTS: Sufficient data were available to perform a meta-analysis on eight scores: PSI, CURB-65, CRB-65, CURB, ATS 2001, ATS/IDSA 2007, SCAP score, and SMART-COP. The estimated AUC of PSI and CURB-65 scores to predict ICU admission was 0.69. Among scores proposed for prediction of ICU admission, ATS-2001 and ATS/IDSA 2007 scores had better operative characteristics, with a sensitivity of 70% (CI, 61 to 77) and 84% (48 to 97) and a specificity of 90% (CI, 82 to 95) and 78% (46 to 93), but their clinical utility is limited by the use of major criteria.ATS/IDSA 2007 minor criteria have good specificity (91% CI, 84 to 95) and moderate sensitivity (57% CI, 46 to 68). SMART-COP and SCAP score have good sensitivity (79% CI, 69 to 97, and 94% CI, 88 to 97) and moderate specificity (64% CI, 30 to 66, and 46% CI, 27 to 66). Major differences in populations, prognostic factor measurement, and outcome definition limit comparison. Our analysis also highlights a high degree of heterogeneity among the studies. CONCLUSIONS: New severity scores for predicting the need for ICU or intensive treatment in patients with CAP, such as ATS/IDSA 2007 minor criteria, SCAP score, and SMART-COP, have better discriminative performances compared with PSI and CURB-65. High negative predictive value is the most consistent finding among the different prediction rules. These rules should be considered an aid to clinical judgment to guide ICU admission in CAP patients.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 153 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Brazil 4 3%
Greece 2 1%
Guatemala 1 <1%
South Africa 1 <1%
France 1 <1%
Belgium 1 <1%
Spain 1 <1%
Portugal 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 140 92%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Postgraduate 22 14%
Other 18 12%
Student > Master 15 10%
Student > Bachelor 14 9%
Researcher 14 9%
Other 44 29%
Unknown 26 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 102 67%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 3%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 4 3%
Social Sciences 3 2%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 1%
Other 10 7%
Unknown 27 18%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 24. 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 17 February 2020.
All research outputs
#973,738
of 16,995,670 outputs
Outputs from Critical Care
#934
of 5,251 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#6,534
of 132,860 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Care
#2
of 77 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 16,995,670 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,251 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 16.6. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% of its peers.
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 132,860 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 77 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its contemporaries.