Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 311

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 14 of the 14 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Bolder Thinking for Conservation

Open access
NOSS, REED F., DOBSON, ANDREW P., BALDWIN, ROBERT, BEIER, PAUL, DAVIS, CORY R., DELLASALA, DOMINICK A., FRANCIS, JOHN, LOCKE, HARVEY, NOWAK, KATARZYNA, LOPEZ, ROEL, REINING, CONRAD, TROMBULAK, STEPHEN C., TABOR, GARY·2012·Conservation Biology

Abstract

Objective: To examine clinical outcomes before and after implementation of a telemedicine program in the intensive care units of a five-hospital healthcare system. Design: Observational study with the baseline period of 1 yr before the start of a telemedicine intensive care unit program implementation at each of 5 hospitals. The post periods are 1, 2, and 3 yrs after telemedicine intensive care unit program implementation at each hospital. Setting: Ten adult intensive care units (114 beds) in five community hospitals in south Florida. A telemedicine intensive care unit program with remote 24/7 intensivist and critical care nurse electronic monitoring was implemented by a phased approach between December 2005 and July 2007. Measurements and Main Results; Records from 24,656 adult intensive care unit patients were analyzed. Hospital length of stay, intensive care unit length of stay, hospital mortality, and Case Mix Index were measured. Severity of illness using All Patient Refined-Diagnosis Related Groups scores was used as a covariate. From the baseline year to year 3 postimplementation, the severity-adjusted hospital length of stay was lowered from 11.86 days (95% confidence interval [CI] 11.55-12.21) to 10.16 days (95% CI 9.80-10.53; p < .001), severity-adjusted intensive care unit length of stay was lowered from 4.35 days (95% CI 4.22-4.49) to 3.80 days (95% CI 3.65-3.94; p < .001), and the relative risk of hospital mortality decreased to 0.77 (95% CI 0.69-0.87; p < .001). Conclusions: After 3 yrs of deployment of a telemedicine intensive care unit program, this retrospective observational study of mortality and length of stay outcomes included all cases admitted to an adult intensive care unit and found statistically significant decreases in severity-adjusted hospital length of stay of 14.2%, intensive care unit length of stay of 12.6%, and relative risk of hospital mortality of 23%, respectively, in a multihospital healthcare system. Copyright © 2012 by the Society of Critical Care Medicine and Lippincott Williams & Wilkins.

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 · 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2011.01738.x

Cites

14 of 14 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 14 references

Cited by

See all 311

Metadata

Authors
NOSS, R. F., DOBSON, A. P., BALDWIN, R., BEIER, P., DAVIS, C. R., DELLASALA, D. A., FRANCIS, J., LOCKE, H., NOWAK, K., LOPEZ, R., REINING, C., TROMBULAK, S. C., & TABOR, G.
Venue
Conservation Biology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2012-01-26
Volume
26
Issue
1
Pages
1-4
ISSN
  • 0888-8892 (ISSN-L)
  • 1523-1739
OpenAlex
W1583914367
Cited by
311
References
14
FWCI
17.65
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

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: Bolder Thinking for Conservation. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2011.01738.x
The paper
NOSS, R. F., DOBSON, A. P., BALDWIN, R., BEIER, P., DAVIS, C. R., DELLASALA, D. A., FRANCIS, J., LOCKE, H., NOWAK, K., LOPEZ, R., REINING, C., TROMBULAK, S. C., & TABOR, G. (2012). Bolder Thinking for Conservation. Conservation Biology. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2011.01738.x

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.