Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 730

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 15 of the 15 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Noninvasive Ventilation for Treatment of Acute Respiratory Failure in Patients Undergoing Solid Organ Transplantation: A Randomized Trial

Antonelli, Massimo, Conti, Giorgio, Bufi, Maurizio, Costa, Maria Gabriella, Lappa, Angela, Rocco, Monica, Gasparetto, Alessandro, Meduri, Gianfranco Umberto·2000·JAMA

Abstract

CONTEXT: Noninvasive ventilation (NIV) has been associated with lower rates of endotracheal intubation in populations of patients with acute respiratory failure. OBJECTIVE: To compare NIV with standard treatment using supplemental oxygen administration to avoid endotracheal intubation in recipients of solid organ transplantation with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure. DESIGN AND SETTING: Prospective randomized study conducted at a 14-bed, general intensive care unit of a university hospital. PATIENTS: Of 238 patients who underwent solid organ transplantation from December 1995 to October 1997, 51 were treated for acute respiratory failure. Of these, 40 were eligible and 20 were randomized to each group. INTERVENTION: Noninvasive ventilation vs standard treatment with supplemental oxygen administration. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The need for endotracheal intubation and mechanical ventilation at any time during the study, complications not present on admission, duration of ventilatory assistance, length of hospital stay, and intensive care unit mortality. RESULTS: The 2 groups were similar at study entry. Within the first hour of treatment, 14 patients (70%) in the NIV group, and 5 patients (25%) in the standard treatment group improved their ratio of the PaO2 to the fraction of inspired oxygen (FIO2). Over time, a sustained improvement in PaO2 to FIO2 was noted in 12 patients (60%) in the NIV group, and in 5 patients (25%) randomized to standard treatment (P = .03). The use of NIV was associated with a significant reduction in the rate of endotracheal intubation (20% vs 70%; P = .002), rate of fatal complications (20% vs 50%; P = .05), length of stay in the intensive care unit by survivors (mean [SD] days, 5.5 [3] vs 9 [4]; P = .03), and intensive care unit mortality (20% vs 50%; P = .05). Hospital mortality did not differ. CONCLUSIONS: These results indicate that transplantation programs should consider NIV in the treatment of selected recipients of transplantation with acute respiratory failure.

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 · 10.1001/jama.283.2.235

Cites

15 of 15 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 15 references

Cited by

See all 730

Metadata

Authors
Antonelli, M., Conti, G., Bufi, M., Costa, M. G., Lappa, A., Rocco, M., Gasparetto, A., & Meduri, G. U.
Venue
JAMA
Published
2000-01-12
Volume
283
Issue
2
Pages
235
ISSN
0098-7484
OpenAlex
W2069378897
Cited by
730
References
15
FWCI
28.90
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: Noninvasive Ventilation for Treatment of Acute Respiratory Failure in Patients Undergoing Solid Organ Transplantation: A Randomized Trial. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1001/jama.283.2.235
The paper
Antonelli, M., Conti, G., Bufi, M., Costa, M. G., Lappa, A., Rocco, M., Gasparetto, A., & Meduri, G. U. (2000). Noninvasive Ventilation for Treatment of Acute Respiratory Failure in Patients Undergoing Solid Organ Transplantation: A Randomized Trial. JAMA. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.283.2.235

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.