The DOI matches its Crossref record; 7 of the 7 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Physician Staffing Patterns and Clinical Outcomes in Critically Ill Patients: A Systematic Review
Abstract
CONTEXT: Intensive care unit (ICU) physician staffing varies widely, and its association with patient outcomes remains unclear. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the association between ICU physician staffing and patient outcomes. DATA SOURCES: We searched MEDLINE (January 1, 1965, through September 30, 2001) for the following medical subject heading (MeSH) terms: intensive care units, ICU, health resources/utilization, hospitalization, medical staff, hospital organization and administration, personnel staffing and scheduling, length of stay, and LOS. We also used the following text words: staffing, intensivist, critical, care, and specialist. To identify observational studies, we added the MeSH terms case-control study and retrospective study. Although we searched for non-English-language citations, we reviewed only English-language articles. We also searched EMBASE, HealthStar (Health Services, Technology, Administration, and Research), and HSRPROJ (Health Services Research Projects in Progress) via Internet Grateful Med and The Cochrane Library and hand searched abstract proceedings from intensive care national scientific meetings (January 1, 1994, through December 31, 2001). STUDY SELECTION: We selected randomized and observational controlled trials of critically ill adults or children. Studies examined ICU attending physician staffing strategies and the outcomes of hospital and ICU mortality and length of stay (LOS). Studies were selected and critiqued by 2 reviewers. We reviewed 2590 abstracts and identified 26 relevant observational studies (of which 1 included 2 comparisons), resulting in 27 comparisons of alternative staffing strategies. Twenty studies focused on a single ICU. DATA SYNTHESIS: We grouped ICU physician staffing into low-intensity (no intensivist or elective intensivist consultation) or high-intensity (mandatory intensivist consultation or closed ICU [all care directed by intensivist]) groups. High-intensity staffing was associated with lower hospital mortality in 16 of 17 studies (94%) and with a pooled estimate of the relative risk for hospital mortality of 0.71 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.62-0.82). High-intensity staffing was associated with a lower ICU mortality in 14 of 15 studies (93%) and with a pooled estimate of the relative risk for ICU mortality of 0.61 (95% CI, 0.50-0.75). High-intensity staffing reduced hospital LOS in 10 of 13 studies and reduced ICU LOS in 14 of 18 studies without case-mix adjustment. High-intensity staffing was associated with reduced hospital LOS in 2 of 4 studies and ICU LOS in both studies that adjusted for case mix. No study found increased LOS with high-intensity staffing after case-mix adjustment. CONCLUSIONS: High-intensity vs low-intensity ICU physician staffing is associated with reduced hospital and ICU mortality and hospital and ICU LOS.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
Meta-analysis in clinical trials
DerSimonian, R., & Laird, N. (1986) · Controlled Clinical Trials · doi:10.1016/0197-2456(86)90046-2 · Cited by 39,552
Meta-analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology<SUBTITLE>A Proposal for Reporting</SUBTITLE>
Stroup, D. F. (2000) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.283.15.2008 · Cited by 20,623
Operating characteristics of a rank correlation test for publication bias
Begg, C. B., & Mazumdar, M. (1994) · Biometrics · doi:10.2307/2533446 · Cited by 16,955
ASSESSMENT OF COMA AND IMPAIRED CONSCIOUSNESS
Teasdale, G., & Jennett, B. (1974) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(74)91639-0 · Cited by 13,215
(2000) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejm200005043421801 · Cited by 12,941
The Hazards of Scoring the Quality of Clinical Trials for Meta-analysis
Jüni, P. (1999) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.282.11.1054 · Cited by 1,981
Meta-Analysis in Clinical Research
L'ABBÉ, K. A., DETSKY, A. S., & O'ROURKE, K. (1987) · Annals of Internal Medicine · doi:10.7326/0003-4819-107-2-224 · Cited by 1,267 · cited 4×
“44 2000 14 (8-24) 13 ( 8-24 ) NS NR 7 Hanson et al,”
Influential
Cited by
Chalfin, D. B., Trzeciak, S., Likourezos, A., Baumann, B. M., & Dellinger, R. P. (2007) · Critical Care Medicine · doi:10.1097/01.ccm.0000266585.74905.5a · Cited by 1,022
Nates, J. L., Nunnally, M., Kleinpell, R., Blosser, S., Goldner, J., Birriel, B., Fowler, C. S., Byrum, D., Miles, W. S., Bailey, H., et al. (2016) · Critical Care Medicine · doi:10.1097/ccm.0000000000001856 · Cited by 683
Nelson, J. E., Cox, C. E., Hope, A. A., & Carson, S. S. (2010) · American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine · doi:10.1164/rccm.201002-0210ci · Cited by 616
Cardoso, L. T., Grion, C. M., Matsuo, T., Anami, E. H., Kauss, I. A., Seko, L., & Bonametti, A. M. (2011) · Critical Care · doi:10.1186/cc9975 · Cited by 461
Lilford, R., Mohammed, M. A., Spiegelhalter, D., & Thomson, R. (2004) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(04)15901-1 · Cited by 448
Metadata
- Authors
- Pronovost, P. J., Angus, D. C., Dorman, T., Robinson, K. A., Dremsizov, T. T., & Young, T. L.
- Venue
- JAMA
- Publisher
- American Medical Association (AMA)
- Published
- 2002-11-06
- Volume
- 288
- Issue
- 17
- Pages
- 2151
- ISSN
- 0002-9955 (ISSN-L)
- 0098-7484
- OpenAlex
- W1963746198
- Cited by
- 1,506
- References
- 7
- FWCI
- 53.85
- 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: Physician Staffing Patterns and Clinical Outcomes in Critically Ill Patients: A Systematic Review. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1001/jama.288.17.2151
- The paper
- Pronovost, P. J., Angus, D. C., Dorman, T., Robinson, K. A., Dremsizov, T. T., & Young, T. L. (2002). Physician Staffing Patterns and Clinical Outcomes in Critically Ill Patients: A Systematic Review. JAMA. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.288.17.2151
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.