Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 688

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 28 of the 28 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Early Use of the Pulmonary Artery Catheter and Outcomes in Patients With Shock and Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome<SUBTITLE>A Randomized Controlled Trial</SUBTITLE>

Richard, Christian·2003·JAMA
DOI 10.1001/jama.290.20.2713
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

CONTEXT: Many physicians believe that the pulmonary artery catheter (PAC) is useful for the diagnosis and treatment of cardiopulmonary disturbances; however, observational studies suggest that its use may be harmful. OBJECTIVE: To determine the effects on outcome of the early use of a PAC in patients with shock mainly of septic origin, acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), or both. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PATIENTS: A multicenter randomized controlled study of 676 patients aged 18 years or older who fulfilled the standard criteria for shock, ARDS, or both conducted in 36 intensive care units in France from January 30, 1999, to June 29, 2001. INTERVENTION: Patients were randomly assigned to either receive a PAC (n = 335) or not (n = 341). The treatment was left to the discretion of each individual physician. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary end point was mortality at 28 days. The principal secondary end points were day 14 and 90 mortality; day 14 organ system, renal support, and vasoactive agents-free days; hospital, intensive care unit, and mechanical ventilation-free days at day 28. RESULTS: The 2 groups were similar at baseline. There were no significant differences in mortality with or without the PAC at day 14: 49.9% vs 51.3% (mortality relative risk [RR], 0.97; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.84-1.13; P =.70); day 28: 59.4% vs 61.0% (RR, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.86-1.10; P =.67); or day 90: 70.7% vs 72.0% (RR, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.89-1.08; P =.71). At day 14, the mean (SD) number of days free of organ system failures with or without the PAC (2.3 [3.6] vs 2.4 [3.5]), renal support (7.4 [6.0] vs 7.5 [5.9]), and vasoactive agents (3.8 [4.8] vs 3.9 [4.9]) did not differ. At day 28, mean (SD) days in hospital with or without the PAC (0.9 [3.6] vs 0.9 [3.3]), in the intensive care unit (3.4 [6.8] vs 3.3 [6.9]), or mechanical ventilation use (5.2 [8.5] vs 5.0 [8.5]) did not differ. CONCLUSION: Clinical management involving the early use of a PAC in patients with shock, ARDS, or both did not significantly affect mortality and morbidity.

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.290.20.2713

Cites

28 of 28 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 28 references

Cited by

See all 688

Metadata

Authors
Richard, C.
Venue
JAMA
Publisher
American Medical Association (AMA)
Published
2003-11-26
Volume
290
Issue
20
Pages
2713
ISSN
  • 0002-9955 (ISSN-L)
  • 0098-7484
DOI
10.1001/jama.290.20.2713
OpenAlex
W2149134020
Cited by
688
References
28
FWCI
38.86
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: Early Use of the Pulmonary Artery Catheter and Outcomes in Patients With Shock and Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome<SUBTITLE>A Randomized Controlled Trial</SUBTITLE>. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1001/jama.290.20.2713
The paper
Richard, C. (2003). Early Use of the Pulmonary Artery Catheter and Outcomes in Patients With Shock and Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome<SUBTITLE>A Randomized Controlled Trial</SUBTITLE>. JAMA. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.290.20.2713

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.