Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 224

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

A Randomized, Controlled Trial of Theophylline in Patients with Severe Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease

Murciano, Danièle, Auclair, Marie-Hélène, Pariente, René, Aubier, Michel·1989·New England Journal of Medicine

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1056/nejm198906083202304

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.

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 224

Metadata

Authors
Murciano, D., Auclair, M.-H., Pariente, R., & Aubier, M.
Venue
New England Journal of Medicine
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.