↓ Skip to main content

Development and validation of a prognostic scoring model for Mycobacterium avium complex lung disease: an observational cohort study

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Infectious Diseases, June 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
4 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
8 Mendeley
Title
Development and validation of a prognostic scoring model for Mycobacterium avium complex lung disease: an observational cohort study
Published in
BMC Infectious Diseases, June 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12879-017-2544-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Shogo Kumagai, Akihiro Ito, Toru Hashimoto, Satoshi Marumo, Hironobu Tokumasu, Aya Kotani, Haruka Yamaki, Masahiro Shirata, Koji Furuuchi, Motonari Fukui, Tadashi Ishida

Abstract

Patients with Mycobacterium avium complex (MAC) lung disease (LD) have a heterogeneous prognosis. This study aimed to develop and validate a prognostic scoring model for these patients using independent risk factors for survival. We retrospectively analyzed the data of patients with MAC-LD from two hospitals (cohort 1, n = 368; cohort 2, n = 118). Cohort 1 was evaluated using a multivariate Cox proportional hazards model to identify independent risk factors for overall survival (OS). A prognostic scoring model composed of these factors was developed, and cohort 1 was stratified into three groups according to risk using the log-rank test. Finally, the prognostic scoring model was validated using the data of cohort 2. Seven independent risk factors for OS were selected from cohort 1, including the male sex, age ≥ 70 years, the presence of a malignancy, body mass index <18.5 kg/m(2), lymphocyte count <1000 cells/μL, serum albumin levels <3.5 g/dL, and fibrocavitary disease. The areas under the receiver operating characteristic curves for the prognostic scoring model were 0.84 [95% confidence interval (CI), 0.80 - 0.89] for cohort 1 and 0.84 (95% CI, 0.75 - 0.92) for cohort 2. The 5-year OS rates of patients stratified into low-risk, intermediate-risk, and high-risk groups were 97.6, 76.6, and 30.8%, respectively (P < 0.001), in cohort 1, and 97.2, 82.3, and 45.4%, respectively (P < 0.001), in cohort 2. This study is the first to develop and validate a prognostic scoring model for patients with MAC-LD. This model may prove useful in clinical settings and practical in estimating the prognosis.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 tweeters 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 8 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 8 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Unspecified 2 25%
Student > Master 2 25%
Student > Ph. D. Student 1 13%
Researcher 1 13%
Professor > Associate Professor 1 13%
Other 1 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 5 63%
Unspecified 2 25%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 13%

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 21 June 2017.
All research outputs
#9,120,809
of 11,394,845 outputs
Outputs from BMC Infectious Diseases
#3,039
of 4,231 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#190,508
of 263,441 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Infectious Diseases
#70
of 110 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 11,394,845 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,231 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.2. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% 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 263,441 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 110 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.