The DOI matches its Crossref record; 26 of the 26 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Time to treatment and mortality during mandated emergency care for sepsis.
Open accessAbstract
BACKGROUND: In 2013, New York began requiring hospitals to follow protocols for the early identification and treatment of sepsis. However, there is controversy about whether more rapid treatment of sepsis improves outcomes in patients. METHODS: We studied data from patients with sepsis and septic shock that were reported to the New York State Department of Health from April 1, 2014, to June 30, 2016. Patients had a sepsis protocol initiated within 6 hours after arrival in the emergency department and had all items in a 3-hour bundle of care for patients with sepsis (i.e., blood cultures, broad-spectrum antibiotic agents, and lactate measurement) completed within 12 hours. Multilevel models were used to assess the associations between the time until completion of the 3-hour bundle and risk-adjusted mortality. We also examined the times to the administration of antibiotics and to the completion of an initial bolus of intravenous fluid. RESULTS: Among 49,331 patients at 149 hospitals, 40,696 (82.5%) had the 3-hour bundle completed within 3 hours. The median time to completion of the 3-hour bundle was 1.30 hours (interquartile range, 0.65 to 2.35), the median time to the administration of antibiotics was 0.95 hours (interquartile range, 0.35 to 1.95), and the median time to completion of the fluid bolus was 2.56 hours (interquartile range, 1.33 to 4.20). Among patients who had the 3-hour bundle completed within 12 hours, a longer time to the completion of the bundle was associated with higher risk-adjusted in-hospital mortality (odds ratio, 1.04 per hour; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.02 to 1.05; P<0.001), as was a longer time to the administration of antibiotics (odds ratio, 1.04 per hour; 95% CI, 1.03 to 1.06; P<0.001) but not a longer time to the completion of a bolus of intravenous fluids (odds ratio, 1.01 per hour; 95% CI, 0.99 to 1.02; P=0.21). CONCLUSIONS: More rapid completion of a 3-hour bundle of sepsis care and rapid administration of antibiotics, but not rapid completion of an initial bolus of intravenous fluids, were associated with lower risk-adjusted in-hospital mortality. (Funded by the National Institutes of Health and others.).
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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?
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“Implementing standardized bundles can help ensure timely and proper sepsis care and has been associated with reductions in mortality [11-13].”
From Integrating a Machine Learning System Into Clinical Workflows: Qualitative Study (2020) · cites this paper as [13]
The check wasn’t confident either way, so it gives no verdict — never disputed.
In the citing paper
“The observed reductions in ICU length of stay (1.8 days), mechanical ventilation duration (2.3 days), and 28-day mortality (5.7%) are clinically meaningful and compare favorably with other sepsis intervention studies22,23.”
From Machine learning predicts sepsis deterioration trajectories. (2026) · cites this paper as [22]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredIn the citing paper
“In a study of 49,331 patients treated at 149 New York hospitals, each additional hour of time from ED arrival to administration of antimicrobials was associated with 1.04 increased odds of in-hospital mortality, p < 0.001 (1.07 (95% CI 1.05–1.09) for patients receiving vasopressors vs. 1.01 (95% CI 0.99–1.04) for patients not on vasopressors) [98].”
From Surviving sepsis campaign: international guidelines for management of sepsis and septic shock 2021 (2021) · cites this paper as [98]
In the citing paper
“In patients with sepsis without shock, the association between time to antimicrobials and mortality within the first few hours from presentation is less consistent [98, 110].”
From Surviving sepsis campaign: international guidelines for management of sepsis and septic shock 2021 (2021) · cites this paper as [98]
In the citing paper
“The mortality reduction associated with early antimicrobials appears strongest in patients with septic shock, where a number of studies have reported a strong association between time-to-antibiotics and death in patients with septic shock but weaker associations in patients without septic shock [98, 109, 110].”
From Surviving sepsis campaign: international guidelines for management of sepsis and septic shock 2021 (2021) · cites this paper as [98]
In the citing paper
“Observational studies do, however, suggest that mortality may increase after intervals exceeding 3–5 h from hospital arrival and/or sepsis recognition [98, 111, 119, 120].”
From Surviving sepsis campaign: international guidelines for management of sepsis and septic shock 2021 (2021) · cites this paper as [98]
In the citing paper
“Early administration of appropriate antimicrobials is one of the most effective interventions to reduce mortality in patients with sepsis [96–98].”
From Surviving sepsis campaign: international guidelines for management of sepsis and septic shock 2021 (2021) · cites this paper as [98]
In the citing paper
“Early administration of appropriate antimicrobial therapy can be life-saving in patients with sepsis”
From Trends in empiric broad-Spectrum antibiotic use for suspected community-onset Sepsis in US hospitals (2024) · cites this paper as [1]
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
Surviving Sepsis Campaign: International guidelines for management of sepsis and septic shock: 2016.
Rhodes, A., Evans, L. E., Alhazzani, W., Levy, M. M., Antonelli, M., Ferrer, R., Kumar, A., Sevransky, J. E., Sprung, C. L., Nunnally, M. E., et al. (2017) · Intensive Care Medicine · doi:10.1007/s00134-017-4683-6 · Cited by 6,621
Self-citation2001 SCCM/ESICM/ACCP/ATS/SIS International Sepsis Definitions Conference
Levy, M. M., Fink, M. P., Marshall, J. C., Abraham, E. H., Angus, D. C., Cook, D., Cohen, J., Opal, S. M., Vincent, J., & Ramsay, G. (2003) · Critical Care Medicine · doi:10.1097/01.ccm.0000050454.01978.3b · Cited by 5,976
Self-citationSeymour, C. W., Liu, V. X., Iwashyna, T. J., Brunkhorst, F. M., Rea, T. D., Scherag, A., Rubenfeld, G., Kahn, J. M., Shankar-Hari, M., Singer, M., et al. (2016) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.2016.0288 · Cited by 3,939
Self-citationSepsis in European intensive care units: Results of the SOAP study*
Vincent, J., Sakr, Y. L., Sprung, C. L., Ranieri, V. M., Reinhart, K., Gerlach, H., Moreno, R. P., Carlet, J. M., Gall, J. L., & Payen, D. M. (2006) · Critical Care Medicine · doi:10.1097/01.ccm.0000194725.48928.3a · Cited by 2,823
Empiric Antibiotic Treatment Reduces Mortality in Severe Sepsis and Septic Shock From the First Hour
Ferrer, R., Martín‐Loeches, I., Phillips, G. S., Osborn, T. M., Townsend, S. R., Dellinger, R. P., Artigas, A., Schorr, C., & Levy, M. M. (2014) · Critical Care Medicine · doi:10.1097/ccm.0000000000000330 · Cited by 1,523
Self-citationBenchmarking the Incidence and Mortality of Severe Sepsis in the United States*
Gaieski, D. F., Edwards, J. M., Kallan, M. J., & Carr, B. G. (2013) · Critical Care Medicine · doi:10.1097/ccm.0b013e31827c09f8 · Cited by 1,323
The timing of early antibiotics and hospital mortality in sepsis.
Liu, V. X., Fielding-Singh, V., Greene, J. D., Baker, J. M., Iwashyna, T. J., Bhattacharya, J., & Escobar, G. J. (2017) · American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine · doi:10.1164/rccm.201609-1848oc · Cited by 1,006
Self-citationJansen, T. C., van Bommel, J., Schoonderbeek, F. J., Sleeswijk Visser, S. J., van der Klooster, J. M., Lima, A. P., Willemsen, S. P., & Bakker, J. (2010) · American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine · doi:10.1164/rccm.200912-1918oc · Cited by 894
Early, Goal-Directed Therapy for Septic Shock — A Patient-Level Meta-Analysis
The PRISM Investigators (2017) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmoa1701380 · Cited by 600
(2009) · doi:10.1007/978-0-387-87959-8 · Cited by 554
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 1
- Liu VX, Am J Respir Crit Care Med
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Items 1,001–1,004 of 1,004
Assessment of the timeliness and robustness for predicting adult sepsis
Guan, Y., Wang, X., Chen, X., Yi, D., Chen, L., & Jiang, X. (2021) · iScience · doi:10.1016/j.isci.2021.102106 · Cited by 7
Machine learning predicts sepsis deterioration trajectories.
Zhang, R., Long, F., Zhao, Z., Wu, J., Tan, R., Xu, W., Li, L., Long, Y., & Qu, H. (2026) · NPJ Digital Medicine · doi:10.1038/s41746-026-02565-x · Cited by 6
Validation and comparison of triage-based screening strategies for sepsis
Rahmati, K., Brown, S. M., Bledsoe, J. R., Passey, P., Taillac, P. P., Youngquist, S. T., Samore, M. M., Hough, C. L., & Peltan, I. D. (2024) · The American Journal of Emergency Medicine · doi:10.1016/j.ajem.2024.08.037 · Cited by 4
Antimicrobials in Sepsis: Time to Pay Attention to When Delays Happen
Lyons, P. G., & Hough, C. L. (2023) · Annals of the American Thoracic Society · doi:10.1513/annalsats.202306-519ed · Cited by 1
Metadata
- Authors
- Seymour, C. W., Gesten, F., Prescott, H. C., Friedrich, M. E., Iwashyna, T. J., Phillips, G. S., Lemeshow, S., Osborn, T., Terry, K. M., & Levy, M. M.
- Affiliations
- New York State Department of Health (US)
- ORCID
- Venue
- New England Journal of Medicine
- Publisher
- Massachusetts Medical Society
- Published
- 2017-06-08
- Volume
- 376
- Issue
- 23
- Pages
- 2235-2244
- ISSN
- 0028-4793 (ISSN-L)
- 1533-4406
- PMC
- PMC5538258
- OpenAlex
- W2614741637
- Semantic Scholar
- 62b9aa37782c55c987f30172befdf1a32ae2a027
- Cited by
- 2,225
- References
- 26
- Citations by year
- 2026: 254 · 2025: 215 · 2024: 245 · 2023: 266 · 2022: 279 · 2021: 241 · 2020: 267 · 2019: 233 · 2018: 176 · 2017: 46
- FWCI
- 154.12
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Locations
- New England Journal of Medicine (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
- PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
- Digital Commons@Becker (Washington University School of Medicine) (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs
- Health Services Research and Development (13-079, 11-109)
- National Institutes of Health
- National Cancer Institute (P30CA016058)
- National Institute of General Medical Sciences (K08GM115859, R35GM119519)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Critical Care and Intensive Care Medicine › Sepsis Diagnosis and Treatment
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Abdominal Surgery and Complications
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Emergency Medicine › Emergency and Acute Care Studies
- Keywords
- sepsis, septic shock, time to treatment, sepsis protocol, antibiotic administration, fluid bolus, in-hospital mortality, emergency department care, risk-adjusted mortality, blood culture, lactate measurement, broad-spectrum antibiotics
- MeSH terms
- Adult, Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Anti-Bacterial Agents, Combined Modality Therapy, Emergency Treatment, Female, Fluid Therapy, Humans, Infusions, Intravenous, Male, Middle Aged, Retrospective Studies, Shock, Septic, Multivariate Analysis, Hospital Mortality, Sepsis, Clinical Audit, Time-to-Treatment
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
