Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 980

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Pulmonary-Artery versus Central Venous Catheter to Guide Treatment of Acute Lung Injury

·2006·New England Journal of Medicine

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The balance between the benefits and the risks of pulmonary-artery catheters (PACs) has not been established. METHODS: We evaluated the relationship of benefits and risks of PACs in 1000 patients with established acute lung injury in a randomized trial comparing hemodynamic management guided by a PAC with hemodynamic management guided by a central venous catheter (CVC) using an explicit management protocol. Mortality during the first 60 days before discharge home was the primary outcome. RESULTS: The groups had similar baseline characteristics. The rates of death during the first 60 days before discharge home were similar in the PAC and CVC groups (27.4 percent and 26.3 percent, respectively; P=0.69; absolute difference, 1.1 percent; 95 percent confidence interval, -4.4 to 6.6 percent), as were the mean (+/-SE) numbers of both ventilator-free days (13.2+/-0.5 and 13.5+/-0.5; P=0.58) and days not spent in the intensive care unit (12.0+/-0.4 and 12.5+/-0.5; P=0.40) to day 28. PAC-guided therapy did not improve these measures for patients in shock at the time of enrollment. There were no significant differences between groups in lung or kidney function, rates of hypotension, ventilator settings, or use of dialysis or vasopressors. Approximately 90 percent of protocol instructions were followed in both groups, with a 1 percent rate of crossover from CVC- to PAC-guided therapy. Fluid balance was similar in the two groups, as was the proportion of instructions given for fluid and diuretics. Dobutamine use was uncommon. The PAC group had approximately twice as many catheter-related complications (predominantly arrhythmias). CONCLUSIONS: PAC-guided therapy did not improve survival or organ function but was associated with more complications than CVC-guided therapy. These results, when considered with those of previous studies, suggest that the PAC should not be routinely used for the management of acute lung injury. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00281268.).

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/nejmoa061895

Cites

3 of 3 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

Cites

Show all 3 references

Research works printed but not linked: 43

  1. 10.1097/00003246-198407000-00001 · DOI · Paper page
  2. 10.1378/chest.99.6.1451 · DOI
  3. 10.1007/s00134-002-1354-y · DOI
  4. 10.1097/00000658-197212000-00014 · doi:10.1097/00000658-197212000-00014
  5. 10.1056/NEJM197107222850402 · DOI · Paper page
  6. Marinelli WA, 1999, Am J Respir Crit Care Med, 160, 69, 10.1164/ajrccm.160.1.9711079 · doi:10.1164/ajrccm.160.1.9711079
  7. 10.1097/00003246-199404000-00011 · DOI · Paper page
  8. Chalfin DB, 1997, New Horiz, 5, 292
  9. 10.1097/00005373-198504000-00005 · DOI
  10. 10.1378/chest.94.6.1176 · DOI · Paper page
  11. 10.1001/jama.294.13.1664 · DOI · Paper page
  12. 10.1097/00003246-199702000-00003 · doi:10.1097/00003246-199702000-00003
  13. 10.1001/jama.264.22.2928 · doi:10.1001/jama.264.22.2928 · Paper page
  14. 10.1097/00003246-200206000-00003 · doi:10.1097/00003246-200206000-00003
  15. Burns D, 1996, Am J Crit Care, 5, 49, 10.4037/ajcc1996.5.1.49 · doi:10.4037/ajcc1996.5.1.49
  16. 10.1007/s00134-003-1924-7 · doi:10.1007/s00134-003-1924-7
  17. 10.1097/00003246-199207000-00006 · doi:10.1097/00003246-199207000-00006
  18. 10.1097/00003246-200106000-00010 · DOI
  19. 10.1378/chest.92.4.721 · DOI · Paper page
  20. 10.1378/chest.98.6.1331 · doi:10.1378/chest.98.6.1331
  21. 10.1378/chest.128.4.2722 · DOI
  22. 10.1016/j.amjmed.2004.12.018 · doi:10.1016/j.amjmed.2004.12.018
  23. 10.1001/jama.286.3.309 · doi:10.1001/jama.286.3.309
  24. 10.1001/jama.276.11.889 · doi:10.1001/jama.276.11.889 · Paper page
  25. 10.1001/jama.283.19.2568 · DOI · Paper page
  26. Robin ED, 1985, Ann Intern Med, 103, 445, 10.7326/0003-4819-103-3-445 · DOI · Paper page
  27. 10.1001/jama.276.11.916 · doi:10.1001/jama.276.11.916
  28. 10.1001/jama.286.3.348 · DOI
  29. Guyatt G, 1991, J Intensive Care Med, 6, 91, 10.1177/088506669100600204 · DOI
  30. 10.1056/NEJMoa021108 · DOI · Paper page
  31. 10.1001/jama.290.20.2713 · DOI · Paper page
  32. 10.1016/S0140-6736(05)67061-4 · DOI · Paper page
  33. 10.1001/jama.294.13.1625 · DOI · Paper page
  34. 10.1007/s00134-002-1206-9 · DOI · Paper page
  35. Morris AH, 2000, Ann Intern Med, 132, 373, 10.7326/0003-4819-132-5-200003070-00007 · DOI · Paper page
  36. 10.1097/00075198-200306000-00012 · DOI
  37. Ivanov RI, 1997, New Horiz, 5, 268
  38. Walker MB, 1994, Clin Intensive Care, 5, 15
  39. 10.1136/bmj.322.7284.446 · doi:10.1136/bmj.322.7284.446
  40. 10.1097/01.CCM.0000150650.70142.E9 · DOI
  41. 10.1056/NEJMe030031 · DOI
  42. 10.1056/NEJMhpr030349 · DOI
  43. 10.1056/NEJMp038133 · DOI

Cited by

See all 980

Metadata

Venue
New England Journal of Medicine
Published
2006-05-25
Volume
354
Issue
21
Pages
2213-2224
ISSN
  • 0028-4793 (ISSN-L)
  • 1533-4406
OpenAlex
W2326364273
Cited by
980
References
3
FWCI
81.97
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: Pulmonary-Artery versus Central Venous Catheter to Guide Treatment of Acute Lung Injury. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1056/nejmoa061895
The paper
Pulmonary-Artery versus Central Venous Catheter to Guide Treatment of Acute Lung Injury. (2006). New England Journal of Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1056/nejmoa061895

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.