Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 603

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 6 of the 6 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Critical care crisis and some recommendations during the COVID-19 epidemic in China

Open access
Xie, Jianfeng, Tong, Zhaohui, Guan, Xiangdong, Du, Bin, Qiu, Haibo, Slutsky, Arthur S.·2020·Intensive Care Medicine
DOI 10.1007/s00134-020-05979-7
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Lack of critical care resource in face of COVID‐19 epidemics Based on data reported by the National Health Commission of China, there have been about 2000 new confirmed cases and > 4000 suspected cases daily over the past week in Wuhan [3]. About 15% of the patients have developed severe pneumonia, and about 6% need noninvasive or invasive ventilatory support. Currently, there are about 1000 patients who need ventilatory support and another 120 new patients daily who require noninvasive or invasive ventilation support in Wuhan city; however, there are only about 600 ICU beds [4]. To address this shortfall, 70 ICU beds were created from general beds and the government quickly transformed three general hospitals to critical care hospitals with a total of about 2500 beds that specialize in patients with severe SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia (equipped with monitors and high-flow nasal cannula, noninvasive ventilator or invasive ventilators). An equally great (or potentially greater) problem is the shortage of trained personnel to treat these critically ill patients. Until the crisis, there were about 300 ICU physicians and 1000 ICU nurses in Wuhan city. By the end of January, more than 600 additional ICU doctors and 1500 ICU nurses were transferred to Wuhan from the rest of China. As well, an additional 3000 staff including infectious disease, respiratory, internal medicine physicians and nurses were transferred to Wuhan by the government. There are logistical issues which make care of the patients difficult. These include donning of personal protective equipment (e.g., gloves, gowns, respiratory and eye protection), lack of instruments and disposables, and shortages of supplemental oxygen. Many severe hypoxemic patients only receive high-flow nasal oxygen (HFNO) or noninvasive mechanical ventilation rather than invasive mechanical ventilation because of intubation delay or lack of mechanical ventilators (especially at early phase). Our preliminary data show that only about 25% of patients who died were intubated and received mechanical ventilation.

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/s00134-020-05979-7

Cites

6 of 6 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 6 references

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
Xie, J., Tong, Z., Guan, X., Du, B., Qiu, H., & Slutsky, A. S.
Venue
Intensive Care Medicine
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2020-03-02
Volume
46
Issue
5
Pages
837-840
ISSN
  • 0342-4642 (ISSN-L)
  • 1432-1238
DOI
10.1007/s00134-020-05979-7
OpenAlex
W3009299193
Cited by
603
References
6
FWCI
16.69
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

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

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.