↓ Skip to main content

The intensive care infection score – a novel marker for the prediction of infection and its severity

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

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (95th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (75th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
95 X users
facebook
2 Facebook pages
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
33 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
77 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
The intensive care infection score – a novel marker for the prediction of infection and its severity
Published in
Critical Care, July 2016
DOI 10.1186/s13054-016-1366-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Patrick J. van der Geest, Mostafa Mohseni, Jo Linssen, Servet Duran, Robert de Jonge, A. B. Johan Groeneveld

Abstract

The prediction of infection and its severity remains difficult in the critically ill. A novel, simple biomarker derived from five blood-cell derived parameters that characterize the innate immune response in routine blood samples, the intensive care infection score (ICIS), could be helpful in this respect. We therefore compared the predictive value of the ICIS with that of the white blood cell count (WBC), C-reactive protein (CRP) and procalcitonin (PCT) for infection and its severity in critically ill patients. We performed a multicenter, cluster-randomized, crossover study in critically ill patients between January 2013 and September 2014. Patients with a suspected infection for which blood cultures were taken by the attending intensivist were included. Blood was taken at the same time for WBC, ICIS, CRP and PCT measurements in the control study periods. Results of imaging and cultures were collected. Patients were divided into groups of increasing likelihood of infection and invasiveness: group 1 without infection or with possible infection irrespective of cultures, group 2 with probable or microbiologically proven local infection without blood stream infection (BSI) and group 3 with BSI irrespective of local infection. Septic shock was assessed. In total, 301 patients were enrolled. CRP, PCT and ICIS were higher in groups 2 and 3 than group 1. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) for the prediction of infection was 0.70 for CRP, 0.71 for PCT and 0.73 for ICIS (P < 0.001). For the prediction of septic shock the AUROC was 0.73 for CRP, 0.85 for PCT and 0.76 for ICIS. These AUROC did not differ from each other. The data suggest that the ICIS is potentially useful for the prediction of infection and its severity in critically ill patients, non-inferiorly to CRP and PCT. In contrast to CRP and PCT, the ICIS can be determined routinely without extra blood sampling and lower costs, yielding results within 15 minutes. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: ID NCT01847079 . Registered on 24 April 2013.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 95 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 77 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Japan 1 1%
South Africa 1 1%
Unknown 75 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 11 14%
Researcher 10 13%
Professor > Associate Professor 7 9%
Professor 6 8%
Other 6 8%
Other 14 18%
Unknown 23 30%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 36 47%
Engineering 3 4%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 3%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 3%
Social Sciences 1 1%
Other 2 3%
Unknown 31 40%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 55. 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 30 July 2016.
All research outputs
#786,544
of 25,713,737 outputs
Outputs from Critical Care
#562
of 6,603 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#15,095
of 372,272 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Care
#29
of 120 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,713,737 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,603 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.8. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% 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 372,272 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 120 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% of its contemporaries.