Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 648

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 36 of the 36 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Two Decades of Mortality Trends Among Patients With Severe Sepsis: A Comparative Meta-Analysis*

Open access
Stevenson, Elizabeth K., Rubenstein, Amanda R., Radin, Gregory T., Wiener, Renda Soylemez, Walkey, Allan J.·2014·Critical Care Medicine

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: Trends in severe sepsis mortality derived from administrative data may be biased by changing International Classification of Diseases, 9th Revision, Clinical Modification, coding practices. We sought to determine temporal trends in severe sepsis mortality using clinical trial data that does not rely on International Classification of Diseases, 9th Revision, Clinical Modifications coding and compare mortality trends in trial data with those observed from administrative data. DESIGN: We searched MEDLINE for multicenter randomized trials that enrolled patients with severe sepsis from 1991 to 2009. We calculated standardized mortality ratios for each trial from observed 28-day mortality of usual care participants and predicted mortality from severity-of-illness scores. To compare mortality trends from clinical trials to administrative data, we identified adult severe sepsis hospitalizations in the Nationwide Inpatient Sample, 1993-2009, using two previously validated algorithms. SETTING: In-patient. PATIENTS: Patients with severe sepsis or septic shock. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Of 3,244 potentially eligible articles, we included 36 multicenter severe sepsis trials, with a total of 14,418 participants in a usual care arm. Participants with severe sepsis receiving usual care had a 28-day mortality of 33.2%. Observed mortality decreased 3.0% annually (95% CI, 0.8%-5.0%; p = 0.009), decreasing from 46.9% (standardized mortality ratio 0.94; 95% CI, 0.86-1.03) during years 1991-1995 to 29% (standardized mortality ratio 0.53; 95% CI, 0.50-0.57) during years 2006-2009 (3.0% annual change). Trends in hospital mortality among patients with severe sepsis identified from administrative data (Angus definition, 4.7% annual change; 95% CI, 4.1%-5.3%; p = 0.69 and Martin definition, 3.5% annual change; 95% CI, 3.0%-4.1%; p = 0.97) were similar to trends identified from clinical trials. CONCLUSION: Since 1991, patients with severe sepsis enrolled in usual care arms of multicenter randomized trials have experienced decreasing mortality. The mortality trends identified in clinical trial participants appear similar to those identified using administrative data and support the use of administrative data to monitor mortality trends in patients with severe 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/ccm.0000000000000026

Cites

36 of 36 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 36 references

Cited by

See all 648

Metadata

Authors
Stevenson, E. K., Rubenstein, A. R., Radin, G. T., Wiener, R. S., & Walkey, A. J.
Venue
Critical Care Medicine
Published
2014-03
Volume
42
Issue
3
Pages
625-631
ISSN
0090-3493 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1967278969
Cited by
648
References
36
FWCI
42.59
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: Two Decades of Mortality Trends Among Patients With Severe Sepsis: A Comparative Meta-Analysis*. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1097/ccm.0000000000000026
The paper
Stevenson, E. K., Rubenstein, A. R., Radin, G. T., Wiener, R. S., & Walkey, A. J. (2014). Two Decades of Mortality Trends Among Patients With Severe Sepsis: A Comparative Meta-Analysis*. Critical Care Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1097/ccm.0000000000000026

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.