Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 487

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 7 of the 7 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Endobronchial Valves for Emphysema without Interlobar Collateral Ventilation

Open access
Klooster, Karin, ten Hacken, Nick H.T., Hartman, Jorine E., Kerstjens, Huib A.M., van Rikxoort, Eva M., Slebos, Dirk-Jan·2015·New England Journal of Medicine

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Bronchoscopic lung-volume reduction with the use of one-way endobronchial valves is a potential treatment for patients with severe emphysema. To date, the benefits have been modest but have been hypothesized to be much larger in patients without interlobar collateral ventilation than in those with collateral ventilation. METHODS: We randomly assigned patients with severe emphysema and a confirmed absence of collateral ventilation to bronchoscopic endobronchial-valve treatment (EBV group) or to continued standard medical care (control group). Primary outcomes were changes from baseline to 6 months in forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1), forced vital capacity (FVC), and 6-minute walk distance. RESULTS: Eighty-four patients were recruited, of whom 16 were excluded because they had collateral ventilation (13 patients) or because lobar segments were inaccessible to the endobronchial valves (3 patients). The remaining 68 patients (mean [±SD] age, 59±9 years; 46 were women) were randomly assigned to the EBV group (34 patients) or the control group (34). At baseline, the FEV1 and FVC were 29±7% and 77±18% of the predicted values, respectively, and the 6-minute walk distance was 374±86 m. Intention-to-treat analyses showed significantly greater improvements in the EBV group than in the control group from baseline to 6 months: the increase in FEV1 was greater in the EBV group than in the control group by 140 ml (95% confidence interval [CI], 55 to 225), the increase in FVC was greater by 347 ml (95% CI, 107 to 588), and the increase in the 6-minute walk distance was greater by 74 m (95% CI, 47 to 100) (P<0.01 for all comparisons). By 6 months, 23 serious adverse events had been reported in the EBV group, as compared with 5 in the control group (P<0.001). One patient in the EBV group died. Serious treatment-related adverse events in this group included pneumothorax (18% of patients) and events requiring valve replacement (12%) or removal (15%). CONCLUSIONS: Endobronchial-valve treatment significantly improved pulmonary function and exercise capacity in patients with severe emphysema characterized by an absence of interlobar collateral ventilation. (Funded by the Netherlands Organization for Health Research and Development and the University Medical Center Groningen; Netherlands Trial Register number, NTR2876.).

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/nejmoa1507807

Cites

7 of 7 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 7 references

Cited by

See all 487

Metadata

Authors
Klooster, K., ten Hacken, N. H. T., Hartman, J. E., Kerstjens, H. A. M., van Rikxoort, E. M., & Slebos, D.-J.
Venue
New England Journal of Medicine
Published
2015-12-10
Volume
373
Issue
24
Pages
2325-2335
ISSN
  • 0028-4793 (ISSN-L)
  • 1533-4406
OpenAlex
W2227775770
Cited by
487
References
7
FWCI
44.24
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: Endobronchial Valves for Emphysema without Interlobar Collateral Ventilation. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1056/nejmoa1507807
The paper
Klooster, K., ten Hacken, N. H. T., Hartman, J. E., Kerstjens, H. A. M., van Rikxoort, E. M., & Slebos, D.-J. (2015). Endobronchial Valves for Emphysema without Interlobar Collateral Ventilation. New England Journal of Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1056/nejmoa1507807

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.