Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 2,836

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

Sepsis in European intensive care units: Results of the SOAP study*

Vincent, Jean-Louis, Sakr, Yasser, Sprung, Charles L., Ranieri, V Marco, Reinhart, Konrad, Gerlach, Herwig, Moreno, Rui, Carlet, Jean, Le Gall, Jean-Roger, Payen, Didier·2006·Critical Care Medicine

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To better define the incidence of sepsis and the characteristics of critically ill patients in European intensive care units. DESIGN: Cohort, multiple-center, observational study. SETTING: One hundred and ninety-eight intensive care units in 24 European countries. PATIENTS: All new adult admissions to a participating intensive care unit between May 1 and 15, 2002. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Demographic data, comorbid diseases, and clinical and laboratory data were collected prospectively. Patients were followed up until death, until hospital discharge, or for 60 days. Of 3,147 adult patients, with a median age of 64 yrs, 1,177 (37.4%) had sepsis; 777 (24.7%) of these patients had sepsis on admission. In patients with sepsis, the lung was the most common site of infection (68%), followed by the abdomen (22%). Cultures were positive in 60% of the patients with sepsis. The most common organisms were Staphylococcus aureus (30%, including 14% methicillin-resistant), Pseudomonas species (14%), and Escherichia coli (13%). Pseudomonas species was the only microorganism independently associated with increased mortality rates. Patients with sepsis had more severe organ dysfunction, longer intensive care unit and hospital lengths of stay, and higher mortality rate than patients without sepsis. In patients with sepsis, age, positive fluid balance, septic shock, cancer, and medical admission were the important prognostic variables for intensive care unit mortality. There was considerable variation between countries, with a strong correlation between the frequency of sepsis and the intensive care unit mortality rates in each of these countries. CONCLUSIONS: This large pan-European study documents the high frequency of sepsis in critically ill patients and shows a close relationship between the proportion of patients with sepsis and the intensive care unit mortality in the various countries. In addition to age, a positive fluid balance was among the strongest prognostic factors for death. Patients with intensive care unit acquired sepsis have a worse outcome despite similar severity scores on intensive care unit admission.

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.0000194725.48928.3a

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 2,836

Metadata

Authors
Vincent, J.-L., Sakr, Y., Sprung, C. L., Ranieri, V. M., Reinhart, K., Gerlach, H., Moreno, R., Carlet, J., Le Gall, J.-R., & Payen, D.
Venue
Critical Care Medicine
Published
2006-02
Volume
34
Issue
2
Pages
344-353
ISSN
0090-3493 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2054938569
Cited by
2,836
References
2
FWCI
70.83
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: Sepsis in European intensive care units: Results of the SOAP study*. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1097/01.ccm.0000194725.48928.3a
The paper
Vincent, J.-L., Sakr, Y., Sprung, C. L., Ranieri, V. M., Reinhart, K., Gerlach, H., Moreno, R., Carlet, J., Le Gall, J.-R., & Payen, D. (2006). Sepsis in European intensive care units: Results of the SOAP study*. Critical Care Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.ccm.0000194725.48928.3a

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.