Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 401

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

Effect of Mechanical Ventilator Weaning Protocols on Respiratory Outcomes in Infants and Children<SUBTITLE>A Randomized Controlled Trial</SUBTITLE>

Randolph, Adrienne G.·2002·JAMA
DOI 10.1001/jama.288.20.2561
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

CONTEXT: Ventilator management protocols shorten the time required to wean adult patients from mechanical ventilation. The efficacy of such weaning protocols among children has not been studied. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate whether weaning protocols are superior to standard care (no defined protocol) for infants and children with acute illnesses requiring mechanical ventilator support and whether a volume support weaning protocol using continuous automated adjustment of pressure support by the ventilator (ie, VSV) is superior to manual adjustment of pressure support by clinicians (ie, PSV). DESIGN AND SETTING: Randomized controlled trial conducted in the pediatric intensive care units of 10 children's hospitals across North America from November 1999 through April 2001. PATIENTS: One hundred eighty-two spontaneously breathing children (<18 years old) who had been receiving ventilator support for more than 24 hours and who failed a test for extubation readiness on minimal pressure support. INTERVENTIONS: Patients were randomized to a PSV protocol (n = 62), VSV protocol (n = 60), or no protocol (n = 60). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Duration of weaning time (from randomization to successful extubation); extubation failure (any invasive or noninvasive ventilator support within 48 hours of extubation). RESULTS: Extubation failure rates were not significantly different for PSV (15%), VSV (24%), and no protocol (17%) (P =.44). Among weaning successes, median duration of weaning was not significantly different for PSV (1.6 days), VSV (1.8 days), and no protocol (2.0 days) (P =.75). Male children more frequently failed extubation (odds ratio, 7.86; 95% confidence interval, 2.36-26.2; P<.001). Increased sedative use in the first 24 hours of weaning predicted extubation failure (P =.04) and, among extubation successes, duration of weaning (P<.001). CONCLUSIONS: In contrast with adult patients, the majority of children are weaned from mechanical ventilator support in 2 days or less. Weaning protocols did not significantly shorten this brief duration of weaning.

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.288.20.2561

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 401

Metadata

Authors
Randolph, A. G.
Venue
JAMA
Publisher
American Medical Association (AMA)
Published
2002-11-27
Volume
288
Issue
20
Pages
2561
ISSN
  • 0002-9955 (ISSN-L)
  • 0098-7484
DOI
10.1001/jama.288.20.2561
OpenAlex
W2161177126
Cited by
401
References
15
FWCI
10.95
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: Effect of Mechanical Ventilator Weaning Protocols on Respiratory Outcomes in Infants and Children<SUBTITLE>A Randomized Controlled Trial</SUBTITLE>. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1001/jama.288.20.2561
The paper
Randolph, A. G. (2002). Effect of Mechanical Ventilator Weaning Protocols on Respiratory Outcomes in Infants and Children<SUBTITLE>A Randomized Controlled Trial</SUBTITLE>. JAMA. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.288.20.2561

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.