Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 1,326

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Benchmarking the Incidence and Mortality of Severe Sepsis in the United States*

Gaieski, David F., Edwards, J. Matthew, Kallan, Michael J., Carr, Brendan G.·2013·Critical Care Medicine

Abstract

BACKGROUND: In 1992, the first consensus definition of severe sepsis was published. Subsequent epidemiologic estimates were collected using administrative data, but ongoing discrepancies in the definition of severe sepsis produced large differences in estimates. OBJECTIVES: We seek to describe the variations in incidence and mortality of severe sepsis in the United States using four methods of database abstraction. We hypothesized that different methodologies of capturing cases of severe sepsis would result in disparate estimates of incidence and mortality. DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS: Using a nationally representative sample, four previously published methods (Angus et al, Martin et al, Dombrovskiy et al, and Wang et al) were used to gather cases of severe sepsis over a 6-year period (2004-2009). In addition, the use of new International Statistical Classification of Diseases, 9th Edition (ICD-9), sepsis codes was compared with previous methods. MEASUREMENTS: Annual national incidence and in-hospital mortality of severe sepsis. RESULTS: The average annual incidence varied by as much as 3.5-fold depending on method used and ranged from 894,013 (300/100,000 population) to 3,110,630 (1,031/100,000) using the methods of Dombrovskiy et al and Wang et al, respectively. Average annual increase in the incidence of severe sepsis was similar (13.0% to 13.3%) across all methods. In-hospital mortality ranged from 14.7% to 29.9% using abstraction methods of Wang et al and Dombrovskiy et al. Using all methods, there was a decrease in in-hospital mortality across the 6-year period (35.2% to 25.6% [Dombrovskiy et al] and 17.8% to 12.1% [Wang et al]). Use of ICD-9 sepsis codes more than doubled over the 6-year period (158,722 - 489,632 [995.92 severe sepsis], 131,719 - 303,615 [785.52 septic shock]). CONCLUSION: There is substantial variability in incidence and mortality of severe sepsis depending on the method of database abstraction used. A uniform, consistent method is needed for use in national registries to facilitate accurate assessment of clinical interventions and outcome comparisons between hospitals and regions.

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.0b013e31827c09f8

Cites

4 of 4 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 4 references

Cited by

See all 1,326

Metadata

Authors
Gaieski, D. F., Edwards, J. M., Kallan, M. J., & Carr, B. G.
Venue
Critical Care Medicine
Published
2013-05
Volume
41
Issue
5
Pages
1167-1174
ISSN
0090-3493 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2101082552
Cited by
1,326
References
4
FWCI
75.02
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: Benchmarking the Incidence and Mortality of Severe Sepsis in the United States*. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1097/ccm.0b013e31827c09f8
The paper
Gaieski, D. F., Edwards, J. M., Kallan, M. J., & Carr, B. G. (2013). Benchmarking the Incidence and Mortality of Severe Sepsis in the United States*. Critical Care Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1097/ccm.0b013e31827c09f8

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.