Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 340

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 74 of the 74 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

A survival benefit of combination antibiotic therapy for serious infections associated with sepsis and septic shock is contingent only on the risk of death: A meta-analytic/meta-regression study

Kumar, Anand, Safdar, Nasia, Kethireddy, Shravan, Chateau, Dan·2010·Critical Care Medicine

Abstract

Objective: To assess whether a potential benefit with combination antibiotic therapy is restricted to the most critically ill subset of patients, particularly those with septic shock. Data Sources: OVID MEDLINE (1950–October 2009), EMBASE (1980–October 2009), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (to third quarter 2009), the ClinicalTrial.gov database, and the SCOPUS database. Study Selection: Randomized or observational studies of antimicrobial therapy of serious bacterial infections potentially associated with sepsis or septic shock. Fifty studies met entry criteria. Data Extraction: Study design, mortality/clinical response, and other variables were extracted independently by two reviewers. When possible, study datasets were split into mutually exclusive groups with and without shock or critical illness. Data Synthesis: Although a pooled odds ratio indicated no overall mortality/clinical response benefit with combination therapy (odds ratio, 0.856; 95% confidence interval, 0.71–1.03; p = .0943; I2 = 45.1%), stratification of datasets by monotherapy mortality risk demonstrated substantial benefit in the most severely ill subset (monotherapy risk of death >25%; odds ratio of death, 0.51; 95% confidence interval, 0.41–0.64; I2 = 8.6%). Of those datasets that could be stratified by the presence of shock/critical illness, the more severely ill group consistently demonstrated increased efficacy of a combination therapy strategy (odds ratio, 0.49; 95% confidence interval, 0.35–0.70; p < .0001; I2 = 0%). An increased risk of death was found in low-risk patients (risk of death ≤15% in the monotherapy arm) exposed to combination therapy (odds ratio, 1.53; 95% confidence interval, 1.16–2.03; p = .003; I2 = 8.2%). Meta-regression indicated that efficacy of combination therapy was dependent only on the risk of death in the monotherapy group. Conclusion: Combination antibiotic therapy improves survival and clinical response of high-risk, life-threatening infections, particularly those associated with septic shock but may be detrimental to low-risk patients.

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.0b013e3181e96b91

Cites

74 of 74 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 74 references

Cited by

See all 340

Metadata

Authors
Kumar, A., Safdar, N., Kethireddy, S., & Chateau, D.
Venue
Critical Care Medicine
Published
2010-08
Volume
38
Issue
8
Pages
1651-1664
ISSN
0090-3493 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2127110195
Cited by
340
References
74
FWCI
14.89
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: A survival benefit of combination antibiotic therapy for serious infections associated with sepsis and septic shock is contingent only on the risk of death: A meta-analytic/meta-regression study. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1097/ccm.0b013e3181e96b91
The paper
Kumar, A., Safdar, N., Kethireddy, S., & Chateau, D. (2010). A survival benefit of combination antibiotic therapy for serious infections associated with sepsis and septic shock is contingent only on the risk of death: A meta-analytic/meta-regression study. Critical Care Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1097/ccm.0b013e3181e96b91

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.