↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Article Metrics

Association of code status discussion with invasive procedures among advanced-stage cancer and noncancer patients

Overview of attention for article published in International Journal of General Medicine, July 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
2 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
14 Mendeley
Title
Association of code status discussion with invasive procedures among advanced-stage cancer and noncancer patients
Published in
International Journal of General Medicine, July 2017
DOI 10.2147/ijgm.s136921
Pubmed ID
Authors

Akinori Sasaki, Eiji Hiraoka, Yosuke Homma, Osamu Takahashi, Yasuhiro Norisue, Koji Kawai, Shigeki Fujitani

Abstract

Code status discussion is associated with a decrease in invasive procedures among terminally ill cancer patients. We investigated the association between code status discussion on admission and incidence of invasive procedures, cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR), and opioid use among inpatients with advanced stages of cancer and noncancer diseases. We performed a retrospective cohort study in a single center, Ito Municipal Hospital, Japan. Participants were patients who were admitted to the Department of Internal Medicine between October 1, 2013 and August 30, 2015, with advanced-stage cancer and noncancer. We collected demographic data and inquired the presence or absence of code status discussion within 24 hours of admission and whether invasive procedures, including central venous catheter placement, intubation with mechanical ventilation, and CPR for cardiac arrest, and opioid treatment were performed. We investigated the factors associated with CPR events by using multivariate logistic regression analysis. Among the total 232 patients, code status was discussed with 115 patients on admission, of which 114 (99.1%) patients had do-not-resuscitate (DNR) orders. The code status was not discussed with the remaining 117 patients on admission, of which 69 (59%) patients had subsequent code status discussion with resultant DNR orders. Code status discussion on admission decreased the incidence of central venous catheter placement, intubation with mechanical ventilation, and CPR in both cancer and noncancer patients. It tended to increase the rate of opioid use. Code status discussion on admission was the only factor associated with the decreased use of CPR (P<0.001, odds ratio =0.03, 95% CI =0.004-0.21), which was found by using multivariate logistic regression analysis. Code status discussion on admission is associated with a decrease in invasive procedures and CPR in cancer and noncancer patients. Physicians should be educated about code status discussion to improve end-of-life care.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter 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 14 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 14 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 5 36%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 29%
Researcher 2 14%
Student > Bachelor 1 7%
Student > Ph. D. Student 1 7%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 1 7%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 9 64%
Linguistics 1 7%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 7%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 7%
Unknown 2 14%

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 18 August 2017.
All research outputs
#6,952,425
of 11,626,228 outputs
Outputs from International Journal of General Medicine
#186
of 396 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#138,533
of 264,244 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Journal of General Medicine
#9
of 11 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 11,626,228 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 396 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.3. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 50% 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 264,244 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 11 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.