Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 572

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 27 of the 27 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Simulation-Based Trial of Surgical-Crisis Checklists

Open access
Arriaga, Alexander F., Bader, Angela M., Wong, Judith M., Lipsitz, Stuart R., Berry, William R., Ziewacz, John E., Hepner, David L., Boorman, Daniel J., Pozner, Charles N., Smink, Douglas S., Gawande, Atul A.·2013·New England Journal of Medicine

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Operating-room crises (e.g., cardiac arrest and massive hemorrhage) are common events in large hospitals but can be rare for individual clinicians. Successful management is difficult and complex. We sought to evaluate a tool to improve adherence to evidence-based best practices during such events. METHODS: Operating-room teams from three institutions (one academic medical center and two community hospitals) participated in a series of surgical-crisis scenarios in a simulated operating room. Each team was randomly assigned to manage half the scenarios with a set of crisis checklists and the remaining scenarios from memory alone. The primary outcome measure was failure to adhere to critical processes of care. Participants were also surveyed regarding their perceptions of the usefulness and clinical relevance of the checklists. RESULTS: A total of 17 operating-room teams participated in 106 simulated surgical-crisis scenarios. Failure to adhere to lifesaving processes of care was less common during simulations when checklists were available (6% of steps missed when checklists were available vs. 23% when they were unavailable, P<0.001). The results were similar in a multivariate model that accounted for clustering within teams, with adjustment for institution, scenario, and learning and fatigue effects (adjusted relative risk, 0.28; 95% confidence interval, 0.18 to 0.42; P<0.001). Every team performed better when the crisis checklists were available than when they were not. A total of 97% of the participants reported that if one of these crises occurred while they were undergoing an operation, they would want the checklist used. CONCLUSIONS: In a high-fidelity simulation study, checklist use was associated with significant improvement in the management of operating-room crises. These findings suggest that checklists for use during operating-room crises have the potential to improve surgical care. (Funded by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.).

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/nejmsa1204720

Cites

27 of 27 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 27 references

Cited by

See all 572

Metadata

Authors
Arriaga, A. F., Bader, A. M., Wong, J. M., Lipsitz, S. R., Berry, W. R., Ziewacz, J. E., Hepner, D. L., Boorman, D. J., Pozner, C. N., Smink, D. S., & Gawande, A. A.
Venue
New England Journal of Medicine
Published
2013-01-17
Volume
368
Issue
3
Pages
246-253
ISSN
  • 0028-4793 (ISSN-L)
  • 1533-4406
OpenAlex
W2170389556
Cited by
572
References
27
FWCI
96.40
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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Simulation-Based Trial of Surgical-Crisis Checklists. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1056/nejmsa1204720
The paper
Arriaga, A. F., Bader, A. M., Wong, J. M., Lipsitz, S. R., Berry, W. R., Ziewacz, J. E., Hepner, D. L., Boorman, D. J., Pozner, C. N., Smink, D. S., & Gawande, A. A. (2013). Simulation-Based Trial of Surgical-Crisis Checklists. New England Journal of Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1056/nejmsa1204720

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.