Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 212

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Empirical antimicrobial therapy of septic shock patients: Adequacy and impact on the outcome*

Leone, Marc, Bourgoin, Aurélie, Cambon, Sylvie, Dubuc, Myriam, Albanèse, Jacques, Martin, Claude·2003·Critical Care Medicine

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To assess the adequacy of empirical antimicrobial therapy prescribed in septic shock patients and to evaluate the relationship between inadequate antimicrobial therapy and 30-day mortality. DESIGN: Prospective observational study. SETTING: Medical-surgical (16-bed) intensive care unit in an urban teaching hospital. PATIENTS: A total of 107 patients requiring intensive care admission were prospectively evaluated during the 3-yr period of the study. INTERVENTIONS: Prospective patient surveillance and data collection and assessment of antimicrobial therapy according to microbiological documentation. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: A source of infection associated with a microbiological documentation was identified in 78 of the 107 patients (72%). Empirical antimicrobial therapy consisted of a pivotal antibiotic (beta-lactam) associated with an aminoglycoside (59 patients) or a fluoroquinolone (21 patients). Vancomycin was added in 14 patients. Sixty-nine of the 78 patients (89%) received an adequate antimicrobial therapy. The mortality rate of patients receiving an adequate antimicrobial therapy was 56%, and seven of the nine patients (78%) receiving an inadequate antimicrobial therapy died (p =.2). Among the 81 patients who were alive on day 3, antimicrobial therapy was modified in agreement to clinical status and microbiological documentation in 80% of cases, with de-escalation in 64% of cases. De-escalation consisted of withdrawing the nonpivotal antibiotic in 42% of patients or switching to a narrow-spectrum beta-lactam antibiotic (22% of cases). CONCLUSION: The prescription of empirical antimicrobial therapy by a senior physician in agreement with practice guidelines made it possible to achieve a crude rate of 89% of adequate antimicrobial therapy in study patients. Inadequate antimicrobial therapy was associated with a 39% excess of mortality. A de-escalation of the empirical therapy was possible in 64% of patients.

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 · 10.1097/01.ccm.0000050298.59549.4a

Cites

2 of 2 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 2 references

Cited by

See all 212

Metadata

Authors
Leone, M., Bourgoin, A., Cambon, S., Dubuc, M., Albanèse, J., & Martin, C.
Venue
Critical Care Medicine
Published
2003-02
Volume
31
Issue
2
Pages
462-467
ISSN
0090-3493 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2034644397
Cited by
212
References
2
FWCI
9.86
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

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: Empirical antimicrobial therapy of septic shock patients: Adequacy and impact on the outcome*. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1097/01.ccm.0000050298.59549.4a
The paper
Leone, M., Bourgoin, A., Cambon, S., Dubuc, M., Albanèse, J., & Martin, C. (2003). Empirical antimicrobial therapy of septic shock patients: Adequacy and impact on the outcome*. Critical Care Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.ccm.0000050298.59549.4a

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.