↓ Skip to main content

Wiley Online Library

Prospective and Explicit Clinical Validation of the Ottawa Heart Failure Risk Scale, With and Without Use of Quantitative NT‐proBNP

Overview of attention for article published in Academic Emergency Medicine, March 2017
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 (97th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (94th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
4 news outlets
blogs
3 blogs
twitter
104 X users
facebook
4 Facebook pages
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
37 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
99 Mendeley
Title
Prospective and Explicit Clinical Validation of the Ottawa Heart Failure Risk Scale, With and Without Use of Quantitative NT‐proBNP
Published in
Academic Emergency Medicine, March 2017
DOI 10.1111/acem.13141
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ian G. Stiell, Jeffrey J. Perry, Catherine M. Clement, Robert J. Brison, Brian H. Rowe, Shawn D. Aaron, Andrew D. McRae, Bjug Borgundvaag, Lisa A. Calder, Alan J. Forster, George A. Wells

Abstract

We previously developed the Ottawa Heart Failure Risk Scale (OHFRS) to assist with disposition decisions for acute heart failure patients in the emergency department (ED). We sought to prospectively evaluate the accuracy, acceptability, and potential impact of OHFRS. This prospective observational cohort study was conducted at six tertiary hospital EDs. Patients with acute heart failure were evaluated by ED physicians for the 10 OHFRS criteria and then followed for 30 days. Quantitative NT-proBNP was measured where feasible. Serious adverse event (SAE) was defined as: death within 30 days, admission to monitored unit, intubation, non-invasive ventilation, myocardial infarction, or relapse resulting in hospital admission within 14 days. We enrolled 1,100 patients with mean age 77.7 years. SSOs occurred in 170 (15.5%) cases (19.4% if admitted and 10.2% if discharged). Compared to actual practice, using an admission threshold of OHFRS score >1 would have increased sensitivity (71.8% vs. 91.8%) but increased admissions (57.2% vs. 77.6%). For 684 cases with NT-proBNP values, using a threshold >1 would have significantly increased sensitivity (69.8% vs. 95.8%) while increasing admissions (60.8% vs. 88.0%). In only 11.9% of cases did physicians indicate discomfort with use of OHFRS. Prospective clinical validation found the OHFRS tool to be highly sensitive for SAEs in acute heart failure patients, albeit with an increase in admission rates. When available, NT-proBNP values further improve sensitivity. With adequate physician training, OHFRS should help improve and standardize admission practices, diminishing both unnecessary admissions for low-risk patients and unsafe discharge decisions for high-risk patients. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 104 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 99 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Pakistan 1 1%
Unknown 98 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 13 13%
Other 10 10%
Researcher 10 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 8 8%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 7%
Other 16 16%
Unknown 35 35%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 36 36%
Nursing and Health Professions 10 10%
Computer Science 4 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 1%
Neuroscience 1 1%
Other 9 9%
Unknown 38 38%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 111. 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 05 October 2020.
All research outputs
#385,818
of 25,750,437 outputs
Outputs from Academic Emergency Medicine
#84
of 3,767 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#8,089
of 322,573 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Academic Emergency Medicine
#3
of 50 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,750,437 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 98th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,767 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 16.4. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% 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 322,573 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 97% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 50 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 94% of its contemporaries.