↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Prediction of critical illness in elderly outpatients using elder risk assessment: a population-based study

Overview of attention for article published in Clinical Interventions in Aging, June 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (55th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
13 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
80 Mendeley
Title
Prediction of critical illness in elderly outpatients using elder risk assessment: a population-based study
Published in
Clinical Interventions in Aging, June 2016
DOI 10.2147/cia.s99419
Pubmed ID
Authors

Michelle Biehl, Paul Y Takahashi, Stephen S Cha, Rajeev Chaudhry, Ognjen Gajic, Bjorg Thorsteinsdottir

Abstract

Identifying patients at high risk of critical illness is necessary for the development and testing of strategies to prevent critical illness. The aim of this study was to determine the relationship between high elder risk assessment (ERA) score and critical illness requiring intensive care and to see if the ERA can be used as a prediction tool to identify elderly patients at the primary care visit who are at high risk of critical illness. A population-based historical cohort study was conducted in elderly patients (age >65 years) identified at the time of primary care visit in Rochester, MN, USA. Predictors including age, previous hospital days, and comorbid health conditions were identified from routine administrative data available in the electronic medical record. The main outcome was critical illness, defined as sepsis, need for mechanical ventilation, or death within 2 years of initial visit. Patients with an ERA score of 16 were considered to be at high risk. The discrimination of the ERA score was assessed using area under the receiver operating characteristic curve. Of the 13,457 eligible patients, 9,872 gave consent for medical record review and had full information on intensive care unit utilization. The mean age was 75.8 years (standard deviation ±7.6 years), and 58% were female, 94% were Caucasian, 62% were married, and 13% were living in nursing homes. In the overall group, 417 patients (4.2%) suffered from critical illness. In the 1,134 patients with ERA >16, 154 (14%) suffered from critical illness. An ERA score ≥16 predicted critical illness (odds ratio 6.35; 95% confidence interval 3.51-11.48). The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve was 0.75, which indicated good discrimination. A simple model based on easily obtainable administrative data predicted critical illness in the next 2 years in elderly outpatients with up to 14% of the highest risk population suffering from critical illness. This model can facilitate efficient enrollment of patients into clinical programs such as care transition programs and studies aimed at the prevention of critical illness. It also can serve as a reminder to initiate advance care planning for high-risk elderly patients. External validation of this tool in different populations may enhance its generalizability.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 80 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 1%
Unknown 79 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 14 18%
Student > Ph. D. Student 12 15%
Student > Master 10 13%
Student > Bachelor 8 10%
Other 5 6%
Other 13 16%
Unknown 18 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 27 34%
Nursing and Health Professions 15 19%
Engineering 3 4%
Social Sciences 2 3%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 1%
Other 9 11%
Unknown 23 29%
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 07 July 2016.
All research outputs
#15,043,267
of 25,576,275 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Interventions in Aging
#974
of 1,973 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#185,691
of 354,169 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Interventions in Aging
#23
of 59 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,576,275 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,973 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.2. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% 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 354,169 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 59 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 55% of its contemporaries.