Focus on sepsis
Open accessThe 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
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.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Accurate identification of sepsis and prediction of patients at risk of developing sepsis is essential to improve treatment.
“Clinically, accurate identification of sepsis and prediction of patients at risk of developing sepsis is essential to improve treatment [37].”
From Machine learning for the prediction of sepsis: a systematic review and meta-analysis of diagnostic test accuracy (2020) · cites this paper as [37]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 20 · Cited by 17
Research works printed but not linked: 1
- Rygard SL, Butler E, Granholm A, Moller MH, Cohen J, Finfer S, Perner A, Myburgh J, Venkatesh B, Delaney A (2018) Low-dose corticosteroids for adult patients with septic shock: a systematic review with meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis. Intensive Care Med 44:1003-1016
- Authors
- Møller, M. H., Alhazzani, W., & Shankar-Hari, M.
- Affiliations
- Copenhagen University Hospital (DK)
- McMaster University (CA)
- Corresponding author
- Møller, Morten Hylander
- Venue
- Intensive Care Medicine
- Published
- 2019-07-02
- Volume
- 45
- Issue
- 10
- Pages
- 1459-1461
- ISSN
- 0342-4642 (ISSN-L)
- 1432-1238
- OpenAlex
- W2954602538
- Cited by
- 17
- References
- 20
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 1 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 2
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Locations
- Intensive Care Medicine (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Research Portal (King's College London) (submittedVersion)
- Research at the University of Copenhagen (University of Copenhagen) (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- National Institute for Health and Care Research (16/33/01, EME/16/33/01, CS-2016-16-011)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Sepsis Diagnosis and Treatment
- Life Sciences › Immunology and Microbiology › Immunology › Inflammation biomarkers and pathways
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Pharmacology › Antibiotics Pharmacokinetics and Efficacy
- Keywords
- sepsis, Surviving Sepsis Campaign, sepsis treatment guidelines
- MeSH terms
- Critical Care, Humans, Sepsis
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
