The DOI matches its Crossref record.
A Randomized, Controlled Trial of Theophylline in Patients with Severe Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease
Abstract
To assess the effects of theophylline in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, we conducted a randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind, crossover trial in 60 patients with severe but stable disease. The patients (mean age, 61 years) were studied before and after two months of placebo and two months of treatment with a sustained-release preparation of theophylline (10 mg per kilogram of body weight per day), administered orally. The two treatments were administered in a random order and separated by an eight-day washout period. After taking theophylline for two months (mean plasma concentration, 14.8 mg per liter), as compared with the two months of placebo, the patients had significant improvements in dyspnea, pulmonary gas exchange (partial pressure of arterial oxygen, 66 vs. 61 mm Hg [P less than 0.0001]; partial pressure of arterial carbon dioxide, 44 vs. 49 mm Hg [P less than 0.0001]), vital capacity (63 percent vs. 58 percent of the predicted value [P less than 0.0001]), and forced expiratory volume in one second (36 percent vs. 32 percent of the predicted value [P less than 0.0001]), with no significant change in airway resistance or functional residual capacity. Minute ventilation increased by a mean of 18 percent (P less than 0.0001) in the patients taking theophylline because of increased tidal volume, with no change in respiratory frequency. The respiratory-muscle performance of the patients taking theophylline improved by approximately 29 percent (P less than 0.0001), as indicated by a decline in the ratio of inspiratory pleural pressure during quiet breathing to maximal pleural pressure. We conclude that theophylline improves respiratory function and dyspnea in patients with severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and that these improvements are probably due to better respiratory-muscle performance.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
Vestbo, J., Hurd, S. S., Agustí, A. G., Jones, P. W., Vogelmeier, C., Anzueto, A., Barnes, P. J., Fabbri, L. M., Martinez, F. J., Nishimura, M., et al. (2013) · American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine · doi:10.1164/rccm.201204-0596pp · Cited by 15,983
Contractile Properties of the Human Diaphragm during Chronic Hyperinflation
Similowski, T., Yan, S., Gauthier, A. P., Macklem, P. T., & Bellemare, F. (1991) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejm199109263251304 · Cited by 473
Belman, M. J., Botnick, W. C., & Shin, J. W. (1996) · American journal of respiratory and critical care medicine · doi:10.1164/ajrccm.153.3.8630581 · Cited by 402
Metadata
- Authors
- Murciano, D., Auclair, M.-H., Pariente, R., & Aubier, M.
- Venue
- New England Journal of Medicine
- Publisher
- Massachusetts Medical Society
- Published
- 1989-06-08
- Volume
- 320
- Issue
- 23
- Pages
- 1521-1525
- ISSN
- 0028-4793 (ISSN-L)
- 1533-4406
- OpenAlex
- W2338429321
- Cited by
- 224
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 21.50
- 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: A Randomized, Controlled Trial of Theophylline in Patients with Severe Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1056/nejm198906083202304
- The paper
- Murciano, D., Auclair, M.-H., Pariente, R., & Aubier, M. (1989). A Randomized, Controlled Trial of Theophylline in Patients with Severe Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease. New England Journal of Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1056/nejm198906083202304
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.