Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 399

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

Effect of Lung-Volume–Reduction Surgery in Patients with Severe Emphysema

Open access
Geddes, Duncan, Davies, Michael, Koyama, Hiroshi, Hansell, David, Pastorino, Ugo, Pepper, John, Agent, Penny, Cullinan, Paul, MacNeill, Stephanie J., Goldstraw, Peter·2000·New England Journal of Medicine

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Although many patients with severe emphysema have undergone lung-volume-reduction surgery, the benefits are uncertain. We conducted a randomized, controlled trial of the surgery in patients with emphysema. Patients with isolated bullae were excluded because such patients are known to improve after bullectomy. METHODS: Potentially eligible patients were given intensive medical treatment and completed a smoking-cessation program and a six-week outpatient rehabilitation program before random assignment to surgery or continued medical treatment. After 15 patients had been randomized, the entry criteria were modified to exclude patients with a carbon monoxide gas-transfer value less than 30 percent of the predicted value or a shuttle-walking distance of less than 150 m, because of the deaths of 5 such patients (3 treated surgically and 2 treated medically). RESULTS: Of the 174 subjects who were initially assessed, 24 were randomly assigned to continued medical treatment and 24 to surgery. At base line in both groups, the median forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1) was 0.75 liter, and the median shuttle-walking distance was 215 m. Five patients in the surgical group (21 percent) and three patients in the medical group (12 percent) died (P=0.43). After six months, the median FEV1 had increased by 70 ml in the surgical group and decreased by 80 ml in the medical group (P=0.02). The median shuttle-walking distance increased by 50 m in the surgical group and decreased by 20 m in the medical group (P=0.02). There were similar changes on a quality-of-life scale and similar changes at 12 months of follow-up. Five of the 19 surviving patients in the surgical group had no benefit from the treatment. CONCLUSIONS: In selected patients with severe emphysema, lung-volume-reduction surgery can improve FEV1, walking distance, and quality of life. Whether it reduces mortality is uncertain.

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/nejm200007273430402

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 399

Metadata

Authors
Geddes, D., Davies, M., Koyama, H., Hansell, D., Pastorino, U., Pepper, J., Agent, P., Cullinan, P., MacNeill, S. J., & Goldstraw, P.
Venue
New England Journal of Medicine
Published
2000-07-27
Volume
343
Issue
4
Pages
239-245
ISSN
  • 0028-4793 (ISSN-L)
  • 1533-4406
OpenAlex
W2328147592
Cited by
399
References
1
FWCI
36.63
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

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: Effect of Lung-Volume–Reduction Surgery in Patients with Severe Emphysema. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1056/nejm200007273430402
The paper
Geddes, D., Davies, M., Koyama, H., Hansell, D., Pastorino, U., Pepper, J., Agent, P., Cullinan, P., MacNeill, S. J., & Goldstraw, P. (2000). Effect of Lung-Volume–Reduction Surgery in Patients with Severe Emphysema. New England Journal of Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1056/nejm200007273430402

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.