The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Management of the Potential Organ Donor in the ICU: Society of Critical Care Medicine/American College of Chest Physicians/Association of Organ Procurement Organizations Consensus Statement
Abstract
This document was developed through the collaborative efforts of the Society of Critical Care Medicine, the American College of Chest Physicians, and the Association of Organ Procurement Organizations. Under the auspices of these societies, a multidisciplinary, multi-institutional task force was convened, incorporating expertise in critical care medicine, organ donor management, and transplantation. Members of the task force were divided into 13 subcommittees, each focused on one of the following general or organ-specific areas: death determination using neurologic criteria, donation after circulatory death determination, authorization process, general contraindications to donation, hemodynamic management, endocrine dysfunction and hormone replacement therapy, pediatric donor management, cardiac donation, lung donation, liver donation, kidney donation, small bowel donation, and pancreas donation. Subcommittees were charged with generating a series of management-related questions related to their topic. For each question, subcommittees provided a summary of relevant literature and specific recommendations. The specific recommendations were approved by all members of the task force and then assembled into a complete document. Because the available literature was overwhelmingly comprised of observational studies and case series, representing low-quality evidence, a decision was made that the document would assume the form of a consensus statement rather than a formally graded guideline. The goal of this document is to provide critical care practitioners with essential information and practical recommendations related to management of the potential organ donor, based on the available literature and expert consensus.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
A Multicenter, Randomized, Controlled Clinical Trial of Transfusion Requirements in Critical Care
Hébert, P. C., Wells, G., Blajchman, M. A., Marshall, J., Martin, C., Pagliarello, G., Tweeddale, M., Schweitzer, I., & Yetisir, E. (1999) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejm199902113400601 · Cited by 5,187
Intensive versus Conventional Glucose Control in Critically Ill Patients
(2009) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmoa0810625 · Cited by 5,119
Comparison of Two Fluid-Management Strategies in Acute Lung Injury
(2006) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmoa062200 · Cited by 3,538
A Comprehensive Risk Quantification Score for Deceased Donor Kidneys: The Kidney Donor Risk Index
Rao, P. S., Schaubel, D. E., Guidinger, M. K., Andreoni, K. A., Wolfe, R. A., Merion, R. M., Port, F. K., & Sung, R. S. (2009) · Transplantation · doi:10.1097/tp.0b013e3181ac620b · Cited by 1,079 · cited 1×
“Kidney Donors Are There Any Unique Selection Criteria Regarding the Kidney Donor? The kidney donor risk index provides transplant surgeons and physicians with a score evaluating the relative risk of graft loss based on specific donor variables (263).”
Background
Cited by
Keegan, M. T. (2019) · Pharmacology and Physiology for Anesthesia · doi:10.1016/b978-0-323-48110-6.00036-3 · Cited by 11
Metadata
- Authors
- Kotloff, R. M., Blosser, S., Fulda, G. J., Malinoski, D., Ahya, V. N., Angel, L., Byrnes, M. C., DeVita, M. A., Grissom, T. E., Halpern, S. D., Nakagawa, T. A., Stock, P. G., Sudan, D. L., Wood, K. E., Anillo, S. J., Bleck, T. P., Eidbo, E. E., Fowler, R. A., Glazier, A. K., Gries, C., Hasz, R., Herr, D., Khan, A., Landsberg, D., Lebovitz, D. J., Levine, D. J., Mathur, M., Naik, P., Niemann, C. U., Nunley, D. R., O’Connor, K. J., Pelletier, S. J., Rahman, O., Ranjan, D., Salim, A., Sawyer, R. G., Shafer, T., Sonneti, D., Spiro, P., Valapour, M., Vikraman-Sushama, D., & Whelan, T. P. M.
- Venue
- Critical Care Medicine
- Published
- 2015-06
- Volume
- 43
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 1291-1325
- ISSN
- 0090-3493 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2229998871
- Cited by
- 376
- References
- 4
- FWCI
- 35.26
- 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
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.