Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 1,077

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 28 of the 28 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Lactate Clearance vs Central Venous Oxygen Saturation as Goals of Early Sepsis Therapy<subtitle>A Randomized Clinical Trial</subtitle>

Open access
Jones, Alan E.·2010·JAMA

Abstract

CONTEXT: Goal-directed resuscitation for severe sepsis and septic shock has been reported to reduce mortality when applied in the emergency department. OBJECTIVE: To test the hypothesis of noninferiority between lactate clearance and central venous oxygen saturation (ScvO2) as goals of early sepsis resuscitation. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PATIENTS: Multicenter randomized, noninferiority trial involving patients with severe sepsis and evidence of hypoperfusion or septic shock who were admitted to the emergency department from January 2007 to January 2009 at 1 of 3 participating US urban hospitals. INTERVENTIONS: We randomly assigned patients to 1 of 2 resuscitation protocols. The ScvO2 group was resuscitated to normalize central venous pressure, mean arterial pressure, and ScvO2 of at least 70%; and the lactate clearance group was resuscitated to normalize central venous pressure, mean arterial pressure, and lactate clearance of at least 10%. The study protocol was continued until all goals were achieved or for up to 6 hours. Clinicians who subsequently assumed the care of the patients were blinded to the treatment assignment. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: The primary outcome was absolute in-hospital mortality rate; the noninferiority threshold was set at Delta equal to -10%. RESULTS: Of the 300 patients enrolled, 150 were assigned to each group and patients were well matched by demographic, comorbidities, and physiological features. There were no differences in treatments administered during the initial 72 hours of hospitalization. Thirty-four patients (23%) in the ScvO2 group died while in the hospital (95% confidence interval [CI], 17%-30%) compared with 25 (17%; 95% CI, 11%-24%) in the lactate clearance group. This observed difference between mortality rates did not reach the predefined -10% threshold (intent-to-treat analysis: 95% CI for the 6% difference, -3% to 15%). There were no differences in treatment-related adverse events between the groups. CONCLUSION: Among patients with septic shock who were treated to normalize central venous and mean arterial pressure, additional management to normalize lactate clearance compared with management to normalize ScvO2 did not result in significantly different in-hospital mortality. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00372502.

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.2010.158

Cites

28 of 28 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 28 references

Cited by

See all 1,077

Metadata

Authors
Jones, A. E.
Venue
JAMA
Published
2010-02-24
Volume
303
Issue
8
Pages
739
ISSN
  • 0002-9955 (ISSN-L)
  • 0098-7484
OpenAlex
W2130075376
Cited by
1,077
References
28
FWCI
52.21
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: Lactate Clearance vs Central Venous Oxygen Saturation as Goals of Early Sepsis Therapy<subtitle>A Randomized Clinical Trial</subtitle>. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1001/jama.2010.158
The paper
Jones, A. E. (2010). Lactate Clearance vs Central Venous Oxygen Saturation as Goals of Early Sepsis Therapy<subtitle>A Randomized Clinical Trial</subtitle>. JAMA. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2010.158

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.