Cited by 1Cardiac Arrest and ResuscitationMechanical Circulatory Support DevicesClinical Nutrition and Gastroenterology

Reply to: immortal time bias in an observational study on enteral nutrition

Open access
Gutierrez, Alejandra, Bartos, Jason A.·2021·Resuscitation

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.resuscitation.2021.07.032

Cites

8 of 8 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Gutierrez, A., & Bartos, J. A.
Affiliations
University of Minnesota (US)
Corresponding author
Bartos, Jason A.
Venue
Resuscitation
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2021-09
Volume
166
Pages
146-147
ISSN
0300-9572 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3191010920
Cited by
1
References
8
Citations by year
2026: 1
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Resuscitation (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Emergency Medicine › Cardiac Arrest and Resuscitation
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Biomedical Engineering › Mechanical Circulatory Support Devices
  • Health Sciences › Nursing › Nutrition and Dietetics › Clinical Nutrition and Gastroenterology
Keywords
immortal time bias, enteral nutrition, timing of enteral feeding, refractory cardiac arrest, extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, targeted temperature management, extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation, critical care outcomes
MeSH terms
Enteral Nutrition, Humans, Time Factors, Bias, Observational Studies as Topic

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