Cited by 27Sepsis Diagnosis and TreatmentClinical practice guidelines implementationHealth Policy Implementation Science

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 34 of the 35 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Sepsis guideline implementation: benefits, pitfalls and possible solutions

Open access
Kissoon, Niranjan·2014·Critical Care

Abstract

Clinical practice guidelines are useful in improving quality of care and outcomes, reducing inappropriate variation in practice, promoting efficient use of resources, informing and empowering patients and informing public policy. However, difficulties arise when guidelines are poorly introduced into routine daily practice and, as a consequence, many patients do not receive the care intended or receive harmful or unnecessary care.

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 · 10.1186/cc13774

Cites

34 of 34 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

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Reasons for low compliance with sepsis care include the lack of a gold standard for sepsis diagnosis and the difficulty of rapidly mobilizing resources needed to treat individuals suspected of having sepsis.

    “The reasons for low compliance include the lack of a gold standard for sepsis diagnosis and the difficulty of rapidly mobilizing resources needed to treat individuals suspected of having sepsis [15,16].”

    From Integrating a Machine Learning System Into Clinical Workflows: Qualitative Study (2020) · cites this paper as [15]

    The 'Reasons for poor adherence' and 'Obstacles and solutions in implementation' sections identify failure to recognize sepsis and shortages of time, staff, and treatment resources as barriers to compliance (page numbers unavailable). They do not say that the lack of a gold standard for sepsis diagnosis is a reason for low compliance. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

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

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 35 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Kissoon, N.
Affiliations
BC Children's Hospital (CA)
Corresponding author
Kissoon, Niranjan
Venue
Critical Care
Published
2014-03-18
Volume
18
Issue
2
Pages
207-207
ISSN
1364-8535 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2169837119
Cited by
25
References
35
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 1
FWCI
0.40
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Critical Care (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Critical Care and Intensive Care Medicine › Sepsis Diagnosis and Treatment
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Clinical practice guidelines implementation
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Policy Implementation Science
Keywords
sepsis, guideline implementation, implementation barriers, quality of care, unnecessary care
MeSH terms
Humans, Practice Guidelines as Topic, Sepsis, Guideline Adherence

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