Cited by 2,414Sepsis Diagnosis and TreatmentHemodynamic Monitoring and TherapyAbdominal Surgery and Complications

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 24 of the 24 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

A randomized trial of protocol-based care for early septic shock.

Open access
The ProCESS Investigators·2014·New England Journal of Medicine

Abstract

BACKGROUND: In a single-center study published more than a decade ago involving patients presenting to the emergency department with severe sepsis and septic shock, mortality was markedly lower among those who were treated according to a 6-hour protocol of early goal-directed therapy (EGDT), in which intravenous fluids, vasopressors, inotropes, and blood transfusions were adjusted to reach central hemodynamic targets, than among those receiving usual care. We conducted a trial to determine whether these findings were generalizable and whether all aspects of the protocol were necessary. METHODS: In 31 emergency departments in the United States, we randomly assigned patients with septic shock to one of three groups for 6 hours of resuscitation: protocol-based EGDT; protocol-based standard therapy that did not require the placement of a central venous catheter, administration of inotropes, or blood transfusions; or usual care. The primary end point was 60-day in-hospital mortality. We tested sequentially whether protocol-based care (EGDT and standard-therapy groups combined) was superior to usual care and whether protocol-based EGDT was superior to protocol-based standard therapy. Secondary outcomes included longer-term mortality and the need for organ support. RESULTS: We enrolled 1341 patients, of whom 439 were randomly assigned to protocol-based EGDT, 446 to protocol-based standard therapy, and 456 to usual care. Resuscitation strategies differed significantly with respect to the monitoring of central venous pressure and oxygen and the use of intravenous fluids, vasopressors, inotropes, and blood transfusions. By 60 days, there were 92 deaths in the protocol-based EGDT group (21.0%), 81 in the protocol-based standard-therapy group (18.2%), and 86 in the usual-care group (18.9%) (relative risk with protocol-based therapy vs. usual care, 1.04; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.82 to 1.31; P=0.83; relative risk with protocol-based EGDT vs. protocol-based standard therapy, 1.15; 95% CI, 0.88 to 1.51; P=0.31). There were no significant differences in 90-day mortality, 1-year mortality, or the need for organ support. CONCLUSIONS: In a multicenter trial conducted in the tertiary care setting, protocol-based resuscitation of patients in whom septic shock was diagnosed in the emergency department did not improve outcomes. (Funded by the National Institute of General Medical Sciences; ProCESS ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00510835.).

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/nejmoa1401602

Cites

24 of 24 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

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?

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

Flagged first, then by citations

Show all 23 references

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. 10.1111/j.1553-2712.2007.tb02391.x · DOI
  2. Pike F, 2013, Crit Care Resusc, 15, 301
  3. Rivers EP, 2012, Minerva Anestesiol, 78, 712

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 501–600 of 1,003

Metadata

Authors
The ProCESS Investigators
Affiliations
University of Pittsburgh Medical Center (US)
Corresponding author
The ProCESS Investigators
Venue
New England Journal of Medicine
Published
2014-05
Volume
370
Issue
18
Pages
1683-1693
ISSN
  • 0028-4793 (ISSN-L)
  • 1533-4406
OpenAlex
W2104415072
Cited by
2,414
References
23
Citations by year
2026: 81 · 2025: 90 · 2024: 101 · 2023: 129 · 2022: 124 · 2021: 179 · 2020: 193 · 2019: 183 · 2018: 213 · 2017: 292 · 2016: 329 · 2015: 332 · 2014: 158
FWCI
280.81
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • New England Journal of Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health (UL1TR000005)
  • National Institute of General Medical Sciences (P50GM076659)
  • National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Critical Care and Intensive Care Medicine › Sepsis Diagnosis and Treatment
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Hemodynamic Monitoring and Therapy
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Abdominal Surgery and Complications
Keywords
septic shock, early goal-directed therapy, protocol-based care, sepsis resuscitation, in-hospital mortality, vasopressors, inotropic agents, blood transfusion, central venous pressure monitoring, emergency department, organ support, usual care comparison, 60-day mortality, 90-day mortality
MeSH terms
Adult, Aged, Anti-Bacterial Agents, Blood Transfusion, Cardiotonic Agents, Clinical Protocols, Combined Modality Therapy, Emergency Service, Hospital, Female, Fluid Therapy, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Resuscitation, Shock, Septic, Vasoconstrictor Agents, Hospital Mortality, Outcome Assessment, Health Care

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