Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 1,767

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 128 of the 128 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Consensus on circulatory shock and hemodynamic monitoring. Task force of the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine

Open access
Cecconi, Maurizio, De Backer, Daniel, Antonelli, Massimo, Beale, Richard, Bakker, Jan, Hofer, Christoph, Jaeschke, Roman, Mebazaa, Alexandre, Pinsky, Michael R., Teboul, Jean Louis, Vincent, Jean Louis, Rhodes, Andrew·2014·Intensive Care Medicine

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: Circulatory shock is a life-threatening syndrome resulting in multiorgan failure and a high mortality rate. The aim of this consensus is to provide support to the bedside clinician regarding the diagnosis, management and monitoring of shock. METHODS: The European Society of Intensive Care Medicine invited 12 experts to form a Task Force to update a previous consensus (Antonelli et al.: Intensive Care Med 33:575-590, 2007). The same five questions addressed in the earlier consensus were used as the outline for the literature search and review, with the aim of the Task Force to produce statements based on the available literature and evidence. These questions were: (1) What are the epidemiologic and pathophysiologic features of shock in the intensive care unit? (2) Should we monitor preload and fluid responsiveness in shock? (3) How and when should we monitor stroke volume or cardiac output in shock? (4) What markers of the regional and microcirculation can be monitored, and how can cellular function be assessed in shock? (5) What is the evidence for using hemodynamic monitoring to direct therapy in shock? Four types of statements were used: definition, recommendation, best practice and statement of fact. RESULTS: Forty-four statements were made. The main new statements include: (1) statements on individualizing blood pressure targets; (2) statements on the assessment and prediction of fluid responsiveness; (3) statements on the use of echocardiography and hemodynamic monitoring. CONCLUSIONS: This consensus provides 44 statements that can be used at the bedside to diagnose, treat and monitor patients with shock.

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 · 10.1007/s00134-014-3525-z

Cites

128 of 128 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 128 references

Cited by

See all 1,767

Metadata

Authors
Cecconi, M., De Backer, D., Antonelli, M., Beale, R., Bakker, J., Hofer, C., Jaeschke, R., Mebazaa, A., Pinsky, M. R., Teboul, J. L., Vincent, J. L., & Rhodes, A.
Venue
Intensive Care Medicine
Published
2014-11-13
Volume
40
Issue
12
Pages
1795-1815
ISSN
  • 0342-4642 (ISSN-L)
  • 1432-1238
OpenAlex
W2067090053
Cited by
1,767
References
128
FWCI
92.89
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
hybrid

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: Consensus on circulatory shock and hemodynamic monitoring. Task force of the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1007/s00134-014-3525-z
The paper
Cecconi, M., De Backer, D., Antonelli, M., Beale, R., Bakker, J., Hofer, C., Jaeschke, R., Mebazaa, A., Pinsky, M. R., Teboul, J. L., Vincent, J. L., & Rhodes, A. (2014). Consensus on circulatory shock and hemodynamic monitoring. Task force of the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine. Intensive Care Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00134-014-3525-z

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.