Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 286

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Intensive Care Society's APACHE II study in Britain and Ireland--II: Outcome comparisons of intensive care units after adjustment for case mix by the American APACHE II method.

Open access
Rowan, K M, Kerr, J H, Major, E, McPherson, K, Short, A, Vessey, M P·1993·BMJ

Abstract

OBJECTIVES--To compare outcome between intensive care units in Britain and Ireland both before and after adjustment for case mix with the American APACHE II method and to validate the American APACHE II method in Britain and Ireland. DESIGN--Prospective, cohort study of consecutive admissions to intensive care units. SETTING--26 general intensive care units in Britain and Ireland. SUBJECTS--8796 admissions to the study intensive care units. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE--Death or survival at discharge from intensive care unit and hospital. RESULTS--At discharge from both intensive care unit and hospital there was a greater than twofold variation in crude mortality between the 26 units. After adjustment for case mix, variations in mortality were still apparent. For four intensive care units the observed numbers of deaths were significantly different from the number predicted by the American APACHE II equation. The overall goodness of fit, or predictive ability, of the APACHE II equation for the British and Irish data was good, being only slightly inferior to that obtained when the equation was tested on the data from which it had been derived. When patients were grouped by various factors such as age and diagnosis, the equation did not adjust across the subgroups in a uniform manner. CONCLUSIONS--The American APACHE II equation did not fit the British and Irish data. Use of the American equation could be of advantage or disadvantage to individual intensive care units, depending on the mix of patients treated.

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 · 10.1136/bmj.307.6910.977

Cites

2 of 2 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 2 references

Cited by

See all 286

Metadata

Authors
Rowan, K. M., Kerr, J. H., Major, E., McPherson, K., Short, A., & Vessey, M. P.
Venue
BMJ
Publisher
BMJ
Published
1993-10-16
Volume
307
Issue
6910
Pages
977-981
ISSN
  • 0007-1447 (ISSN-L)
  • 0959-8138
  • 1468-5833
OpenAlex
W1986994540
Cited by
286
References
2
FWCI
13.22
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: Intensive Care Society's APACHE II study in Britain and Ireland--II: Outcome comparisons of intensive care units after adjustment for case mix by the American APACHE II method. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1136/bmj.307.6910.977
The paper
Rowan, K. M., Kerr, J. H., Major, E., McPherson, K., Short, A., & Vessey, M. P. (1993). Intensive Care Society's APACHE II study in Britain and Ireland--II: Outcome comparisons of intensive care units after adjustment for case mix by the American APACHE II method. BMJ. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.307.6910.977

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.