Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 224

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Why Sepsis Trials Fail

Bone, Roger C.·1996·JAMA: The Journal of the American Medical Association

Abstract

FEW CRITICAL conditions in medicine are as paradoxical as the events occurring during sepsis. The response of the patient's body to an insult such as infection or severe injury may initially be appropriate, but such defenses can lose their usual balance and destroy the patient. If the defense forces could be down-regulated after they have responded to the initial insult but before they begin destroying the body itself, we could prevent sepsis from developing—or at least reduce the associated mortality. Deceptively simple, a viable way to accomplish this downregulation has eluded intense clinical research scrutiny for more than 10 years. All the trials of new therapies for sepsis conducted to date have failed to show efficacy (Table). Conducted under the rigorous conditions of the double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial, their uniformly negative results have provoked great disappointment. I believe the trials have reached the correct conclusion. The problem has not been

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/jama.1996.03540070061032

Cites

1 of 1 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 1 references

Cited by

See all 224

Metadata

Authors
Bone, R. C.
Venue
JAMA: The Journal of the American Medical Association
Published
1996-08-21
Volume
276
Issue
7
Pages
565
ISSN
  • 0002-9955 (ISSN-L)
  • 0098-7484
OpenAlex
W2024133296
Cited by
224
References
1
FWCI
17.34
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

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: Why Sepsis Trials Fail. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1001/jama.1996.03540070061032
The paper
Bone, R. C. (1996). Why Sepsis Trials Fail. JAMA: The Journal of the American Medical Association. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.1996.03540070061032

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.