Cited by 178Respiratory Support and MechanismsAirway Management and Intubation TechniquesNeonatal Respiratory Health Research

High-flow nasal cannula compared with conventional oxygen therapy for acute hypoxemic respiratory failure: author's reply

Open access
Rochwerg, Bram, Granton, D., Wang, D. X., Einav, S., Burns, K. E. A.·2019·Intensive Care Medicine

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 · 10.1007/s00134-019-05658-2

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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?

  • The SMART trial was a single-center study without individual patient randomization and no blinded assignment, exposed participants to moderate fluid volume, identified sepsis subgroups based on ICD-10 codes, and used a composite outcome which may not be as relevant as a patient-centered outcome.

    “The SMART trial was a single-center study without individual patient randomization and no blinded assignment of the intervention, it exposed participants to moderate amount of fluid volume, identification of sepsis subgroups was based on ICD-10 codes, and it used a composite outcome which may not be as relevant as a patient-centered outcome (336).”

    From Surviving Sepsis Campaign: International Guidelines for Management of Sepsis and Septic Shock 2021. (2021) · cites this paper as [336]

    Split into 2 atoms — 0 confirmed, 1 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 1 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • A systematic review and meta-analysis of nine RCTs showed that HFNC reduces intubation compared with conventional oxygen (RR 0.85; 95% CI 0.74-0.99) but does not affect the risk of death or ICU length of stay.

    “A systematic review and meta-analysis of nine RCTs [2] showed that HFNC reduces intubation compared with conventional oxygen (RR 0.85; 95% CI 0.74–0.99) but does not affect the risk of death or ICU length of stay [412–414].”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Rochwerg, B., Granton, D., Wang, D. X., Einav, S., & Burns, K. E. A.
Affiliations
  • Juravinski Hospital (CA)
  • McMaster University (CA)
  • Western University (CA)
  • Hebrew University of Jerusalem (IL)
  • University of Toronto (CA)
Corresponding author
Rochwerg, Bram
Venue
Intensive Care Medicine
Published
2019-06-24
Volume
45
Issue
8
Pages
1171-1171
ISSN
  • 0342-4642 (ISSN-L)
  • 1432-1238
OpenAlex
W2952178284
Cited by
178
References
2
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 11 · 2024: 17 · 2023: 21 · 2022: 25 · 2021: 52 · 2020: 47 · 2019: 3
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Intensive Care Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pulmonary and Respiratory Medicine › Respiratory Support and Mechanisms
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine › Airway Management and Intubation Techniques
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pulmonary and Respiratory Medicine › Neonatal Respiratory Health Research
Keywords
high-flow nasal cannula, conventional oxygen therapy, acute hypoxemic respiratory failure, mechanical ventilation, oxygen delivery
MeSH terms
Cannula, Hypoxia, Humans, Oxygen, Oxygen Inhalation Therapy, Respiratory Insufficiency

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