Cited by 80Sepsis Diagnosis and TreatmentAcute Kidney Injury ResearchHemodynamic Monitoring and Therapy

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 8 of the 9 references it cites were found in a registry or an index, and 1 are not checked yet.

Albumin Replacement in Severe Sepsis or Septic Shock

Pietro Caironi, Gianni Tognoni, Luciano Gattinoni·2014·New England Journal of Medicine

Abstract

To the Editor: The Albumin Italian Outcome Sepsis study conducted by Caironi et al. (April 10 issue)1 is the third large-scale, randomized trial to compare albumin with crystalloids in adult patients with severe sepsis. The first such trial was the Saline versus Albumin Fluid Evaluation study.2 In addition, the Early Albumin Resuscitation during Septic Shock study has been completed and its mortality results published.3 In all three trials, mortality was lower among patients receiving albumin, and the respective relative risks coincided closely, ranging from 0.87 to 0.94 (Fig. 1). Although the effect did not attain statistical significance in any of the individual trials, the pooled relative risk in all three trials is 0.92 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.84 to 1.00; P = 0.046), indicating a significant reduction in mortality associated with albumin use among adults with severe sepsis. This result supports the conclusion of a previous metaanalysis involving predominantly small trials with different control fluids and patient populations.4 The result is also consistent with the observed reduction in mortality associated with albumin use among patients with spontaneous bacterial peritonitis, a disease that shares important pathophysiological features with severe sepsis.5

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1056/nejmc1405675

Cites

8 of 9 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, 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?

  • Smaller studies suggest that source control within 6 to 12 hours is advantageous.

    “While there are limited data to conclusively issue a recommendation regarding the timeframe in which source control should be obtained, smaller studies suggest that source control within 6 to 12 hours is advantageous (265-271).”

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. Charpentier J, 2011, Intensive Care Med, 37, S115
  2. 10.1056/nejmoa1305727 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Caironi, P., Tognoni, G., & Gattinoni, L.
Affiliations
Fondazione IRCCS Ca' Granda Ospedale Maggiore Policlinico (IT)
Venue
New England Journal of Medicine
Published
2014-07-03
Volume
371
Issue
1
Pages
83-84
ISSN
  • 0028-4793 (ISSN-L)
  • 1533-4406
OpenAlex
W1230640476
Cited by
80
References
8
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 10 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 9 · 2020: 9 · 2019: 8 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 8 · 2016: 6 · 2015: 4 · 2014: 3
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • New England Journal of Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Institutional Research Information System University of Turin (University of Turin) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Critical Care and Intensive Care Medicine › Sepsis Diagnosis and Treatment
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Nephrology › Acute Kidney Injury Research
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Hemodynamic Monitoring and Therapy
Keywords
albumin, sepsis, septic shock, crystalloids, fluid resuscitation, mortality, spontaneous bacterial peritonitis
MeSH terms
Albumins, Female, Humans, Isotonic Solutions, Male, Shock, Septic, Rehydration Solutions, 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