↓ Skip to main content

Should we confirm our clinical diagnostic certainty by autopsies?

Overview of attention for article published in Intensive Care Medicine, October 2001
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 (94th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (95th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
3 news outlets
blogs
2 blogs
twitter
1 tweeter

Citations

dimensions_citation
56 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
31 Mendeley
connotea
1 Connotea
Title
Should we confirm our clinical diagnostic certainty by autopsies?
Published in
Intensive Care Medicine, October 2001
DOI 10.1007/s00134-001-1129-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

M. Podbregar, G. Voga, B. Krivec, R. Skale, R. Parežnik, L. Gabršček

Abstract

To evaluate the frequency of diagnostic errors assessed by autopsies. Retrospective review of medical and pathological records in an 11-bed closed medical intensive care unit (ICU) at a 860-bed general hospital. Patients who died in the ICU between January 1998 and December 1999. Medical diagnoses were rated into three levels of clinical diagnostic certainty: complete certainty (group L1), minor diagnostic uncertainty (group L2), and major diagnostic uncertainty (group L3). The patients were divided into three error groups: group A, the autopsy confirmed the clinical diagnosis; group B, the autopsy demonstrated a new relevant diagnosis which would probably not have influenced the therapy and outcome; group C, the autopsy demonstrated a new relevant diagnosis which would probably have changed the therapy and outcome. The overall mortality was 20.3% (270/1331 patients). Autopsies were performed in 126 patients (46.9% of deaths), more often in younger patients (66.6+/-13.9 years vs 72.7+/-12.0 years, p<0.001), in patients with shorter ICU stay (4.7+/-5.6 days vs 6.7+/-8.7 days, p=0.054), and in patients in group L3 without chronic diseases (15/126 vs 1/144, p<0.001). Fatal but potentially treatable errors [group C, 12 patients (9.5%)] were found in 8.7%, 10.0%, and 10.5% of patients in groups L1, L2, and L3, respectively (NS between groups). An ICU length of stay shorter than 24 h was not related to the frequency of group C errors. Autopsies are performed more often in younger patients without chronic disease and in patients with a low clinical diagnostic certainty. No level of clinical diagnostic certainty could predict the pathological findings.

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 31 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Chile 1 3%
United States 1 3%
Unknown 29 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 6 19%
Student > Postgraduate 5 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 10%
Student > Master 2 6%
Other 12 39%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 18 58%
Psychology 5 16%
Unspecified 3 10%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 3%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 1 3%
Other 3 10%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 40. 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 24 April 2019.
All research outputs
#439,666
of 13,652,000 outputs
Outputs from Intensive Care Medicine
#251
of 3,538 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#13,782
of 266,500 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Intensive Care Medicine
#3
of 70 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,652,000 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 3,538 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.0. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% 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 266,500 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 94% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 70 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 95% of its contemporaries.