Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 2,766

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Targeted Temperature Management at 33°C versus 36°C after Cardiac Arrest

Open access
Nielsen, Niklas, Wetterslev, Jørn, Cronberg, Tobias, Erlinge, David, Gasche, Yvan, Hassager, Christian, Horn, Janneke, Hovdenes, Jan, Kjaergaard, Jesper, Kuiper, Michael, Pellis, Tommaso, Stammet, Pascal, Wanscher, Michael, Wise, Matt P., Åneman, Anders, Al-Subaie, Nawaf, Boesgaard, Søren, Bro-Jeppesen, John, Brunetti, Iole, Bugge, Jan Frederik, Hingston, Christopher D., Juffermans, Nicole P., Koopmans, Matty, Køber, Lars, Langørgen, Jørund, Lilja, Gisela, Møller, Jacob Eifer, Rundgren, Malin, Rylander, Christian, Smid, Ondrej, Werer, Christophe, Winkel, Per, Friberg, Hans·2013·New England Journal of Medicine

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Unconscious survivors of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest have a high risk of death or poor neurologic function. Therapeutic hypothermia is recommended by international guidelines, but the supporting evidence is limited, and the target temperature associated with the best outcome is unknown. Our objective was to compare two target temperatures, both intended to prevent fever. METHODS: In an international trial, we randomly assigned 950 unconscious adults after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest of presumed cardiac cause to targeted temperature management at either 33°C or 36°C. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality through the end of the trial. Secondary outcomes included a composite of poor neurologic function or death at 180 days, as evaluated with the Cerebral Performance Category (CPC) scale and the modified Rankin scale. RESULTS: In total, 939 patients were included in the primary analysis. At the end of the trial, 50% of the patients in the 33°C group (235 of 473 patients) had died, as compared with 48% of the patients in the 36°C group (225 of 466 patients) (hazard ratio with a temperature of 33°C, 1.06; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.89 to 1.28; P=0.51). At the 180-day follow-up, 54% of the patients in the 33°C group had died or had poor neurologic function according to the CPC, as compared with 52% of patients in the 36°C group (risk ratio, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.88 to 1.16; P=0.78). In the analysis using the modified Rankin scale, the comparable rate was 52% in both groups (risk ratio, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.89 to 1.14; P=0.87). The results of analyses adjusted for known prognostic factors were similar. CONCLUSIONS: In unconscious survivors of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest of presumed cardiac cause, hypothermia at a targeted temperature of 33°C did not confer a benefit as compared with a targeted temperature of 36°C. (Funded by the Swedish Heart-Lung Foundation and others; TTM ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01020916.).

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 · 10.1056/nejmoa1310519

Cites

3 of 3 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 3 references

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
Nielsen, N., Wetterslev, J., Cronberg, T., Erlinge, D., Gasche, Y., Hassager, C., Horn, J., Hovdenes, J., Kjaergaard, J., Kuiper, M., Pellis, T., Stammet, P., Wanscher, M., Wise, M. P., Åneman, A., Al-Subaie, N., Boesgaard, S., Bro-Jeppesen, J., Brunetti, I., Bugge, J. F., Hingston, C. D., Juffermans, N. P., Koopmans, M., Køber, L., Langørgen, J., Lilja, G., Møller, J. E., Rundgren, M., Rylander, C., Smid, O., Werer, C., Winkel, P., & Friberg, H.
Venue
New England Journal of Medicine
Published
2013-12-05
Volume
369
Issue
23
Pages
2197-2206
ISSN
  • 0028-4793 (ISSN-L)
  • 1533-4406
OpenAlex
W2171886225
Cited by
2,766
References
3
FWCI
294.45
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.