Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 533

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 19 of the 19 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Red Blood Cell Distribution Width and Mortality Risk in a Community-Based Prospective Cohort

Open access
Perlstein, Todd S., Weuve, Jennifer, Pfeffer, Marc A., Beckman, Joshua A.·2009·Archives of Internal Medicine

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Red blood cell distribution width (RDW), an automated measure of red blood cell size heterogeneity (eg, anisocytosis) that is largely overlooked, is a newly recognized risk marker in patients with established cardiovascular disease (CVD). It is unknown whether RDW is associated with mortality in the general population or whether this association is specific to CVD. METHODS: We examined the association of RDW with all-cause mortality and with CVD, cancer, and chronic lower respiratory tract disease mortality in 15 852 adult participants in the Third National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (1988-1994), a nationally representative sample of the US population. Mortality status was obtained by matching to the National Death Index, with follow-up through December 31, 2000. RESULTS: Estimated mortality rates increased 5-fold from the lowest to the highest quintile of RDW after accounting for age and 2-fold after multivariable adjustment (P(trend) < .001 for each). A 1-SD increment in RDW (0.98%) was associated with a 23% greater risk of all-cause mortality (hazard ratio [HR], 1.23; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.18-1.28) after multivariable adjustment. The RDW was also associated with risk of death due to CVD (HR, 1.22; 95% CI, 1.14-1.31), cancer (1.28; 1.21-1.36), and chronic lower respiratory tract disease (1.32; 1.17-1.49). CONCLUSIONS: Higher RDW is associated with increased mortality risk in this large, community-based sample, an association not specific to CVD. Study of anisocytosis may, therefore, yield novel pathophysiologic insights, and measurement of RDW may contribute to risk assessment.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1001/archinternmed.2009.55

Cites

19 of 19 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 19 references

Cited by

See all 533

Metadata

Authors
Perlstein, T. S., Weuve, J., Pfeffer, M. A., & Beckman, J. A.
Venue
Archives of Internal Medicine
Published
2009-03-23
Volume
169
Issue
6
Pages
588
ISSN
0003-9926 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2168925860
Cited by
533
References
19
FWCI
11.04
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Red Blood Cell Distribution Width and Mortality Risk in a Community-Based Prospective Cohort. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1001/archinternmed.2009.55
The paper
Perlstein, T. S., Weuve, J., Pfeffer, M. A., & Beckman, J. A. (2009). Red Blood Cell Distribution Width and Mortality Risk in a Community-Based Prospective Cohort. Archives of Internal Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1001/archinternmed.2009.55

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.