Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 398

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 30 of the 30 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

The Surviving Sepsis Campaign bundles and outcome: results from the International Multicentre Prevalence Study on Sepsis (the IMPreSS study)

Open access
Rhodes, Andrew, Phillips, Gary, Beale, Richard, Cecconi, Maurizio, Chiche, Jean Daniel, De Backer, Daniel, Divatia, Jigeeshu, Du, Bin, Evans, Laura, Ferrer, Ricard, Girardis, Massimo, Koulenti, Despoina, Machado, Flavia, Simpson, Steven Q., Tan, Cheng Cheng, Wittebole, Xavier, Levy, Mitchell·2015·Intensive Care Medicine

Abstract

IntroductionDespite evidence demonstrating the value of performance initiatives, marked differences remain between hospitals in the delivery of care for patients with sepsis. The aims of this study were to improve our understanding of how compliance with the 3-h and 6-h Surviving Sepsis Campaign (SSC) bundles are used in different geographic areas, and how this relates to outcome.MethodsThis was a global, prospective, observational, quality improvement study of compliance with the SSC bundles in patients with either severe sepsis or septic shock.ResultsA total of 1794 patients from 62 countries were enrolled in the study with either severe sepsis or septic shock. Overall compliance with all the 3-h bundle metrics was 19 %. This was associated with lower hospital mortality than non-compliance (20 vs. 31 %, p < 0.001). Overall compliance with all the 6-h bundle metrics was 36 %. This was associated with lower hospital mortality than non-compliance (22 vs. 32 %, p < 0.001). After adjusting the crude mortality differences for ICU admission, sepsis status (severe sepsis or septic shock), location of diagnosis, APACHE II score and country, compliance remained independently associated with improvements in hospital mortality for both the 3-h bundle (OR = 0.64 (95 % CI 0.47−0.87), p = 0.004)) and 6-h bundle (OR = 0.71 (95 % CI 0.56−0.90), p = 0.005)).DiscussionCompliance with all of the evidence-based bundle metrics was not high. Patients whose care included compliance with all of these metrics had a 40 % reduction in the odds of dying in hospital with the 3-h bundle and 36 % for the 6-h bundle.

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/s00134-015-3906-y

Cites

30 of 30 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 30 references

Cited by

See all 398

Metadata

Authors
Rhodes, A., Phillips, G., Beale, R., Cecconi, M., Chiche, J. D., De Backer, D., Divatia, J., Du, B., Evans, L., Ferrer, R., Girardis, M., Koulenti, D., Machado, F., Simpson, S. Q., Tan, C. C., Wittebole, X., & Levy, M.
Venue
Intensive Care Medicine
Published
2015-06-25
Volume
41
Issue
9
Pages
1620-1628
ISSN
  • 0342-4642 (ISSN-L)
  • 1432-1238
OpenAlex
W1901090210
Cited by
398
References
30
FWCI
36.47
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: The Surviving Sepsis Campaign bundles and outcome: results from the International Multicentre Prevalence Study on Sepsis (the IMPreSS study). https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1007/s00134-015-3906-y
The paper
Rhodes, A., Phillips, G., Beale, R., Cecconi, M., Chiche, J. D., De Backer, D., Divatia, J., Du, B., Evans, L., Ferrer, R., Girardis, M., Koulenti, D., Machado, F., Simpson, S. Q., Tan, C. C., Wittebole, X., & Levy, M. (2015). The Surviving Sepsis Campaign bundles and outcome: results from the International Multicentre Prevalence Study on Sepsis (the IMPreSS study). Intensive Care Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00134-015-3906-y

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.