Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 264

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

A Multicenter Randomized Trial of Continuous versus Intermittent β-Lactam Infusion in Severe Sepsis

Dulhunty, Joel M., Roberts, Jason A., Davis, Joshua S., Webb, Steven A. R., Bellomo, Rinaldo, Gomersall, Charles, Shirwadkar, Charudatt, Eastwood, Glenn M., Myburgh, John, Paterson, David L., Starr, Therese, Paul, Sanjoy K., Lipman, Jeffrey·2015·American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine

Abstract

RATIONALE: Continuous infusion of β-lactam antibiotics may improve outcomes because of time-dependent antibacterial activity compared with intermittent dosing. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the efficacy of continuous versus intermittent infusion in patients with severe sepsis. METHODS: We conducted a randomized controlled trial in 25 intensive care units (ICUs). Participants commenced on piperacillin-tazobactam, ticarcillin-clavulanate, or meropenem were randomized to receive the prescribed antibiotic via continuous or 30-minute intermittent infusion for the remainder of the treatment course or until ICU discharge. The primary outcome was the number of alive ICU-free days at Day 28. Secondary outcomes were 90-day survival, clinical cure 14 days post antibiotic cessation, alive organ failure-free days at Day 14, and duration of bacteremia. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: We enrolled 432 eligible participants with a median age of 64 years and an Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II score of 20. There was no difference in ICU-free days: 18 days (interquartile range, 2-24) and 20 days (interquartile range, 3-24) in the continuous and intermittent groups (P = 0.38). There was no difference in 90-day survival: 74.3% (156 of 210) and 72.5% (158 of 218); hazard ratio, 0.91 (95% confidence interval, 0.63-1.31; P = 0.61). Clinical cure was 52.4% (111 of 212) and 49.5% (109 of 220); odds ratio, 1.12 (95% confidence interval, 0.77-1.63; P = 0.56). There was no difference in organ failure-free days (6 d; P = 0.27) and duration of bacteremia (0 d; P = 0.24). CONCLUSIONS: In critically ill patients with severe sepsis, there was no difference in outcomes between β-lactam antibiotic administration by continuous and intermittent infusion. Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry number (ACT RN12612000138886).

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.201505-0857oc

Cites

3 of 3 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 3 references

Cited by

See all 264

Metadata

Authors
Dulhunty, J. M., Roberts, J. A., Davis, J. S., Webb, S. A. R., Bellomo, R., Gomersall, C., Shirwadkar, C., Eastwood, G. M., Myburgh, J., Paterson, D. L., Starr, T., Paul, S. K., & Lipman, J.
Venue
American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine
Published
2015-12-01
Volume
192
Issue
11
Pages
1298-1305
ISSN
  • 1073-449X (ISSN-L)
  • 1535-4970
OpenAlex
W1933142041
Cited by
264
References
3
FWCI
20.09
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: A Multicenter Randomized Trial of Continuous versus Intermittent β-Lactam Infusion in Severe Sepsis. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1164/rccm.201505-0857oc
The paper
Dulhunty, J. M., Roberts, J. A., Davis, J. S., Webb, S. A. R., Bellomo, R., Gomersall, C., Shirwadkar, C., Eastwood, G. M., Myburgh, J., Paterson, D. L., Starr, T., Paul, S. K., & Lipman, J. (2015). A Multicenter Randomized Trial of Continuous versus Intermittent β-Lactam Infusion in Severe Sepsis. American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1164/rccm.201505-0857oc

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.