Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 573

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 509 of the 509 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

The Surgical Infection Society Revised Guidelines on the Management of Intra-Abdominal Infection

Open access
Mazuski, John E., Tessier, Jeffrey M., May, Addison K., Sawyer, Robert G., Nadler, Evan P., Rosengart, Matthew R., Chang, Phillip K., O'Neill, Patrick J., Mollen, Kevin P., Huston, Jared M., Diaz, Jose J., Prince, Jose M.·2017·Surgical Infections
DOI 10.1089/sur.2016.261
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Previous evidence-based guidelines on the management of intra-abdominal infection (IAI) were published by the Surgical Infection Society (SIS) in 1992, 2002, and 2010. At the time the most recent guideline was released, the plan was to update the guideline every five years to ensure the timeliness and appropriateness of the recommendations. METHODS: Based on the previous guidelines, the task force outlined a number of topics related to the treatment of patients with IAI and then developed key questions on these various topics. All questions were approached using general and specific literature searches, focusing on articles and other information published since 2008. These publications and additional materials published before 2008 were reviewed by the task force as a whole or by individual subgroups as to relevance to individual questions. Recommendations were developed by a process of iterative consensus, with all task force members voting to accept or reject each recommendation. Grading was based on the GRADE (Grades of Recommendation Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) system; the quality of the evidence was graded as high, moderate, or weak, and the strength of the recommendation was graded as strong or weak. Review of the document was performed by members of the SIS who were not on the task force. After responses were made to all critiques, the document was approved as an official guideline of the SIS by the Executive Council. RESULTS: This guideline summarizes the current recommendations developed by the task force on the treatment of patients who have IAI. Evidence-based recommendations have been made regarding risk assessment in individual patients; source control; the timing, selection, and duration of antimicrobial therapy; and suggested approaches to patients who fail initial therapy. Additional recommendations related to the treatment of pediatric patients with IAI have been included. SUMMARY: The current recommendations of the SIS regarding the treatment of patients with IAI are provided in this guideline.

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 · 10.1089/sur.2016.261

Cites

509 of 509 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

Items 401–509 of 509

Cited by

See all 573

Metadata

Authors
Mazuski, J. E., Tessier, J. M., May, A. K., Sawyer, R. G., Nadler, E. P., Rosengart, M. R., Chang, P. K., O'Neill, P. J., Mollen, K. P., Huston, J. M., Diaz, J. J., & Prince, J. M.
Venue
Surgical Infections
Publisher
SAGE Publications
Published
2017-01
Volume
18
Issue
1
Pages
1-76
ISSN
  • 1096-2964 (ISSN-L)
  • 1557-8674
DOI
10.1089/sur.2016.261
OpenAlex
W2583549666
Cited by
573
References
509
FWCI
39.89
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.