Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 341

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

Risk and the Efficacy of Antiinflammatory Agents: Retrospective and Confirmatory Studies of Sepsis

Eichacker, Peter Q., Parent, Chantal, Kalil, Andre, Esposito, Claire, Cui, Xizhong, Banks, Steven M., Gerstenberger, Eric P., Fitz, Yvonne, Danner, Robert L., Natanson, Charles·2002·American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine

Abstract

We investigated whether a relationship between risk of death and treatment effect could explain the disparate results between the preclinical and clinical sepsis trials of antiinflammatory agents over the last decade. A metaregression analysis of cited preclinical studies showed that the treatment effects of these agents were highly dependent on risk of death (p = 0.0001) and that animals were studied at significantly higher control mortality rates than humans (median [25th-75th quartile], 88% [79-96%] versus 39% [32-42%], p = 0.0001). An analysis of the clinical trials showed that antiinflammatory agents were also significantly more efficacious in septic patients with higher risk of death (p = 0.002) and were harmful in those with low risk. To test this relationship prospectively, we studied antiinflammatory agents in models employing differing doses of bacterial challenge to produce the full range of risk of death. We found that the efficacy of these agents, although very beneficial at high control mortality rates, was much reduced (p = 0.0001) and similar to those in human trials at moderate control mortality rates (i.e., 30 to 40%). The efficacy of antiinflammatory agents during sepsis is dependent on the risk of death, an observation that explains the apparent contradiction between preclinical and clinical trial results. Accounting for this relationship may be necessary for the safe and effective development of antiinflammatory therapies for sepsis.

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 · 10.1164/rccm.200204-302oc

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

Cited by

See all 341

Metadata

Authors
Eichacker, P. Q., Parent, C., Kalil, A., Esposito, C., Cui, X., Banks, S. M., Gerstenberger, E. P., Fitz, Y., Danner, R. L., & Natanson, C.
Venue
American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine
Published
2002-11-01
Volume
166
Issue
9
Pages
1197-1205
ISSN
  • 1073-449X (ISSN-L)
  • 1535-4970
OpenAlex
W2103336162
Cited by
341
References
2
FWCI
18.77
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: Risk and the Efficacy of Antiinflammatory Agents: Retrospective and Confirmatory Studies of Sepsis. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1164/rccm.200204-302oc
The paper
Eichacker, P. Q., Parent, C., Kalil, A., Esposito, C., Cui, X., Banks, S. M., Gerstenberger, E. P., Fitz, Y., Danner, R. L., & Natanson, C. (2002). Risk and the Efficacy of Antiinflammatory Agents: Retrospective and Confirmatory Studies of Sepsis. American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1164/rccm.200204-302oc

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.