↓ Skip to main content

A clinical score to predict mortality in septic acute kidney injury patients requiring continuous renal replacement therapy: the HELENICC score

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Anesthesiology, February 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
42 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
33 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
A clinical score to predict mortality in septic acute kidney injury patients requiring continuous renal replacement therapy: the HELENICC score
Published in
BMC Anesthesiology, February 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12871-017-0312-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Rogério da Hora Passos, João Gabriel Rosa Ramos, Evandro Jose Bulhoes Mendonça, Eva Alves Miranda, Fábio Ricardo Dantas Dutra, Maria Fernanda R. Coelho, Andrea C. Pedroza, Luis Claudio L. Correia, Paulo Benigno Pena Batista, Etienne Macedo, Margarida M. D. Dutra

Abstract

This study aimed to identify predictors of early (7-day) mortality in patients with septic acute kidney injury (AKI) who required continuous renal replacement therapy (CRRT). Prospective cohort of 186 septic AKI patients undergoing CRRT at a tertiary hospital, from October 2005 to November 2010. After multivariate adjustment, five variables were associated to early mortality: norepinephrine utilization, liver failure, medical condition, lactate level, and pre-dialysis creatinine level. These variables were combined in a score, which demonstrated good discrimination, with a C-statistic of 0.82 (95% CI = 0.76-0.88), and good calibration (χ (2) = 4.3; p = 0.83). SAPS 3, APACHE II and SOFA scores demonstrated poor performance in this population. The HEpatic failure, LactatE, NorepInephrine, medical Condition, and Creatinine (HELENICC) score outperformed tested generic models. Future studies should further validate this score in different cohorts.

Timeline

Login to access the full chart related to this output.

If you don’t have an account, click here to discover Explorer

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 33 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 33 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 4 12%
Researcher 3 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 6%
Student > Bachelor 2 6%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 6%
Other 5 15%
Unknown 15 45%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 11 33%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 3%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 3%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 3%
Chemical Engineering 1 3%
Other 4 12%
Unknown 14 42%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 14 February 2017.
All research outputs
#20,403,545
of 22,953,506 outputs
Outputs from BMC Anesthesiology
#1,184
of 1,504 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#355,840
of 420,233 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Anesthesiology
#32
of 41 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,953,506 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,504 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.1. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 420,233 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 41 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.