Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 547

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Low-Dose Inhaled Nitric Oxide in Patients With Acute Lung Injury<SUBTITLE>A Randomized Controlled Trial</SUBTITLE>

Taylor, Robert W.·2004·JAMA

Abstract

CONTEXT: Inhaled nitric oxide has been shown to improve oxygenation in acute lung injury. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the clinical efficacy of low-dose (5-ppm) inhaled nitric oxide in patients with acute lung injury. DESIGN AND SETTING: Multicenter, randomized, placebo-controlled study, with blinding of patients, caregivers, data collectors, assessors of outcomes, and data analysts (triple blind), conducted in the intensive care units of 46 hospitals in the United States. Patients were enrolled between March 1996 and September 1999. PATIENTS: Patients (n = 385) with moderately severe acute lung injury, a modification of the American-European Consensus Conference definition of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) using a ratio of PaO2 to FiO2 of < or =250, were enrolled if the onset was within 72 hours of randomization, sepsis was not the cause of the lung injury, and the patient had no significant nonpulmonary organ system dysfunction at randomization. INTERVENTIONS: Patients were randomly assigned to placebo (nitrogen gas) or inhaled nitric oxide at 5 ppm until 28 days, discontinuation of assisted breathing, or death. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary end point was days alive and off assisted breathing. Secondary outcomes included mortality, days alive and meeting oxygenation criteria for extubation, and days patients were alive following a successful unassisted ventilation test. RESULTS: An intent-to-treat analysis revealed that inhaled nitric oxide at 5 ppm did not increase the number of days patients were alive and off assisted breathing (mean [SD], 10.6 [9.8] days in the placebo group and 10.7 [9.7] days in the inhaled nitric oxide group; P =.97; difference, -0.1 day [95% confidence interval, -2.0 to 1.9 days]). This lack of effect on clinical outcomes was seen despite a statistically significant increase in PaO2 that resolved by 48 hours. Mortality was similar between groups (20% placebo vs 23% nitric oxide; P =.54). Days patients were alive following a successful 2-hour unassisted ventilation trial were a mean (SD) of 11.9 (9.9) for placebo and 11.4 (9.8) for nitric oxide patients (P =.54). Days alive and meeting criteria for extubation were also similar: 17.0 placebo vs 16.7 nitric oxide (P =.89). CONCLUSION: Inhaled nitric oxide at a dose of 5 ppm in patients with acute lung injury not due to sepsis and without evidence of nonpulmonary organ system dysfunction results in short-term oxygenation improvements but has no substantial impact on the duration of ventilatory support or mortality.

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.291.13.1603

Cites

1 of 1 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

Cited by

See all 547

Metadata

Authors
Taylor, R. W.
Venue
JAMA
Published
2004-04-07
Volume
291
Issue
13
Pages
1603
ISSN
  • 0002-9955 (ISSN-L)
  • 0098-7484
OpenAlex
W2094764102
Cited by
547
References
1
FWCI
30.97
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: Low-Dose Inhaled Nitric Oxide in Patients With Acute Lung Injury<SUBTITLE>A Randomized Controlled Trial</SUBTITLE>. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1001/jama.291.13.1603
The paper
Taylor, R. W. (2004). Low-Dose Inhaled Nitric Oxide in Patients With Acute Lung Injury<SUBTITLE>A Randomized Controlled Trial</SUBTITLE>. JAMA. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.291.13.1603

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.