Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 274

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 19 of the 19 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

The Association Between Fluid Administration and Outcome Following Major Burn: A Multicenter Study

Open access
Klein, Matthew B., Hayden, Douglas, Elson, Constance, Nathens, Avery B., Gamelli, Richard L., Gibran, Nicole S., Herndon, David N., Arnoldo, Brett, Silver, Geoff, Schoenfeld, David, Tompkins, Ronald G.·2007·Annals of Surgery

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To determine patient and injury variables that influence fluid requirements following burn injury and examine the association between fluid volume received and outcome. BACKGROUND: Fluid resuscitation remains the cornerstone of acute burn management. Recent studies suggest that patients today are receiving more fluid per percent total body surface area (TBSA) than in the past. Therefore, there is a need to better define the factors that impact fluid requirements and to determine the effects of fluid volumes on outcome. METHODS: This study was part of a federally funded multicenter study. Multilinear regression analyses were performed to determine the patient and injury characteristics that most influenced fluid resuscitation volumes received. To assess the association of fluid volumes on outcome, propensity scores were developed to provide a predicted volume of fluid for each patient. Logistic models were then used to assess the impact of excess fluid beyond predicted volumes on outcome. RESULTS: Seventy-two patients were included in this analysis. Average patient age was 40.6 years and average TBSA was 44.5%. Average fluid volume received during the first 24 hours after injury was 5.2/mL/kg/TBSA. Significant predictors of fluid received included % TBSA, age, intubation status, and weight. Increased fluid volume received increased risk of development of pneumonia (odds ratio [OR] = 1.92), bloodstream infections (OR =2.33), adult respiratory distress syndrome (OR = 1.55), multiorgan failure (OR= 1.49), and death (OR = 1.74). CONCLUSION: TBSA, age, weight, and intubation status on admission were significant predictors of fluid received. Patients who received larger volumes of resuscitation fluid were at higher risk for injury complications and death.

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.sla.0000252572.50684.49

Cites

19 of 19 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 19 references

Cited by

See all 274

Metadata

Authors
Klein, M. B., Hayden, D., Elson, C., Nathens, A. B., Gamelli, R. L., Gibran, N. S., Herndon, D. N., Arnoldo, B., Silver, G., Schoenfeld, D., & Tompkins, R. G.
Venue
Annals of Surgery
Published
2007-04
Volume
245
Issue
4
Pages
622-628
ISSN
0003-4932 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1984675920
Cited by
274
References
19
FWCI
10.47
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: The Association Between Fluid Administration and Outcome Following Major Burn: A Multicenter Study. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1097/01.sla.0000252572.50684.49
The paper
Klein, M. B., Hayden, D., Elson, C., Nathens, A. B., Gamelli, R. L., Gibran, N. S., Herndon, D. N., Arnoldo, B., Silver, G., Schoenfeld, D., & Tompkins, R. G. (2007). The Association Between Fluid Administration and Outcome Following Major Burn: A Multicenter Study. Annals of Surgery. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.sla.0000252572.50684.49

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.