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 accessAbstract
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.
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
ASSESSMENT OF COMA AND IMPAIRED CONSCIOUSNESS
Teasdale, G., & Jennett, B. (1974) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(74)91639-0 · Cited by 13,215
A REVIEW OF GOODNESS OF FIT STATISTICS FOR USE IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF LOGISTIC REGRESSION MODELS1
LEMESHOW, S., & HOSMER, D. W. (1982) · American Journal of Epidemiology · doi:10.1093/oxfordjournals.aje.a113284 · Cited by 1,947
Cited by
League Tables and Their Limitations: Statistical Issues in Comparisons of Institutional Performance
Goldstein, H., & Spiegelhalter, D. J. (1996) · Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series A (Statistics in Society) · doi:10.2307/2983325 · Cited by 1,069
Zarb, P., Coignard, B., Griskeviciene, J., Muller, A., Vankerckhoven, V, Weist, K., Goossens, M. M., Vaerenberg, S., Hopkins, S., Catry, B., et al. (2012) · Eurosurveillance · doi:10.2807/ese.17.46.20316-en · Cited by 785
Comparison of Medical Admissions to Intensive Care Units in the United States and United Kingdom
Wunsch, H., Angus, D. C., Harrison, D. A., Linde-Zwirble, W. T., & Rowan, K. M. (2011) · American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine · doi:10.1164/rccm.201012-1961oc · Cited by 256
Self-citation
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.