Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 372

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 29 of the 29 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Sepsis incidence and outcome: Contrasting the intensive care unit with the hospital ward*

Esteban, Andrés, Frutos-Vivar, Fernando, Ferguson, Niall D., Peñuelas, Oscar, Lorente, José Ángel, Gordo, Federico, Honrubia, Teresa, Algora, Alejandro, Bustos, Alejandra, García, Gema, Diaz-Regañón, Inmaculada Rodríguez, de Luna, Rafael Ruiz·2007·Critical Care Medicine

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To describe the outcome of patients with sepsis according to location on a ward or in an intensive care unit. DESIGN: Prospective multicentered observational study. SETTING: Three academic hospitals in Madrid, Spain. PATIENTS: Consecutive patients with sepsis admitted to participating hospitals from March 1 to June 30, 2003. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: During the study period, 15,852 patients >18 yrs of age were admitted. Sepsis was identified in 702 patients, giving an estimated cumulative incidence rate of 367 cases per 100,000 adult area residents per year and a cumulative incidence rate among patients admitted to the hospital of 4.4%. Most septic patients had a community-acquired infection (71%). Severe sepsis developed in 199 patients (incidence rate, 104 cases per 100,000 adult area residents per year), and 59 patients developed septic shock (incidence rate, 31 cases per 100,000 adult area residents per year). Most of the patients met the criteria for severe sepsis or septic shock on the same day that they would have qualified for the septic status one step down the scale. In the other patients, the median time between sepsis and severe sepsis was 2 days (interquartile range, 2-5) and between severe sepsis and septic shock was 3 days (interquartile range, 1-4). Only 32% of severe sepsis patients received intensive care. The hospital mortality for all septic patients was 12.8%; for severe sepsis, 20.7%; and for septic shock, 45.7%. CONCLUSIONS: This study shows the high incidence of sepsis in a general population of patients admitted to hospital. A significant proportion of patients with severe sepsis are not transferred to the intensive care unit.

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.0000260960.94300.de

Cites

29 of 29 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 29 references

Cited by

See all 372

Metadata

Authors
Esteban, A., Frutos-Vivar, F., Ferguson, N. D., Peñuelas, O., Lorente, J. Á., Gordo, F., Honrubia, T., Algora, A., Bustos, A., García, G., Diaz-Regañón, I. R., & de Luna, R. R.
Venue
Critical Care Medicine
Published
2007-05
Volume
35
Issue
5
Pages
1284-1289
ISSN
0090-3493 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1993440563
Cited by
372
References
29
FWCI
7.33
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 incidence and outcome: Contrasting the intensive care unit with the hospital ward*. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1097/01.ccm.0000260960.94300.de
The paper
Esteban, A., Frutos-Vivar, F., Ferguson, N. D., Peñuelas, O., Lorente, J. Á., Gordo, F., Honrubia, T., Algora, A., Bustos, A., García, G., Diaz-Regañón, I. R., & de Luna, R. R. (2007). Sepsis incidence and outcome: Contrasting the intensive care unit with the hospital ward*. Critical Care Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.ccm.0000260960.94300.de

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.