Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 291

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 6 of the 6 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Source control in the management of severe sepsis and septic shock: An evidence-based review

Open access
Marshall, John C., Maier, Ronald V., Jimenez, Maria, Dellinger, E Patchen·2004·Critical Care Medicine

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: In 2003, critical care and infectious disease experts representing 11 international organizations developed management guidelines for source control in the management of severe sepsis and septic shock that would be of practical use for the bedside clinician, under the auspices of the Surviving Sepsis Campaign, an international effort to increase awareness and to improve outcome in severe sepsis. DESIGN: The process included a modified Delphi method, a consensus conference, several subsequent smaller meetings of subgroups and key individuals, teleconferences, and electronic-based discussion among subgroups and among the entire committee. METHODS: The modified Delphi methodology used for grading recommendations built on a 2001 publication sponsored by the International Sepsis Forum. We undertook a systematic review of the literature graded along five levels to create recommendation grades from A to E, with A being the highest grade. Pediatric considerations to contrast adult and pediatric management are in the article by Parker et al. on p. S591. CONCLUSION: Source control represents a key component of success in therapy of sepsis. It includes drainage of infected fluids, debridement of infected soft tissues, removal of infected devices or foreign bodies, and finally, definite measures to correct anatomic derangement resulting in ongoing microbial contamination and to restore optimal function. Although highly logical, since source control is the best way to reduce quickly the bacterial inoculum, most recommendations are, however, graded as D or E due to the difficulty to perform appropriate randomized clinical trials in this respect. Appropriate source control should be part of the systematic checklist we have to keep in mind in setting up the therapeutic strategy in sepsis.

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.0000143119.41916.5d

Cites

6 of 6 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 6 references

Cited by

See all 291

Metadata

Authors
Marshall, J. C., Maier, R. V., Jimenez, M., & Dellinger, E. P.
Venue
Critical Care Medicine
Published
2004-11
Volume
32
Issue
Supplement
Pages
S513-S526
ISSN
0090-3493 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1970511728
Cited by
291
References
6
FWCI
7.43
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

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: Source control in the management of severe sepsis and septic shock: An evidence-based review. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1097/01.ccm.0000143119.41916.5d
The paper
Marshall, J. C., Maier, R. V., Jimenez, M., & Dellinger, E. P. (2004). Source control in the management of severe sepsis and septic shock: An evidence-based review. Critical Care Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.ccm.0000143119.41916.5d

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.