Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 249

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 10 of the 10 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Acute respiratory distress syndrome: Underrecognition by clinicians and diagnostic accuracy of three clinical definitions*

Ferguson, Niall D., Frutos-Vivar, Fernando, Esteban, Andrés, Fernández-Segoviano, Pilar, Aramburu, José Antonio, Nájera, Laura, Stewart, Thomas E.·2005·Critical Care Medicine

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To determine and compare the diagnostic accuracy of three clinical definitions of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS): (1) the American-European consensus conference definition; (2) the lung injury score; and (3) a recently developed Delphi definition. A second objective was to determine the accuracy of clinical diagnoses of ARDS made in daily practice. DESIGN: Independent comparison of autopsy findings with the daily status of clinical definitions, constructed with data abstracted retrospectively from medical records. SETTING: Tertiary intensive care unit. PATIENTS: One hundred thirty-eight patients from the period 1995 through 2001 who were autopsied after being mechanically ventilated. INTERVENTIONS: Clinical ARDS diagnoses were determined daily without knowledge of autopsy results. Charts were reviewed for any mention of ARDS in the clinical notes. Autopsies were reviewed independently by two pathologists for the presence of diffuse alveolar damage. The sensitivity and specificity of the definitions were determined with use of diffuse alveolar damage at autopsy as the reference standard. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Diffuse alveolar damage at autopsy was documented in 42 of 138 cases (30.4%). Only 20 of these 42 patients (47.6%) had any mention of ARDS in their chart. Sensitivities and specificities (95% confidence intervals) were as follows: American-European definition, 0.83 (0.72-0.95), 0.51 (0.41-0.61); lung injury score, 0.74 (0.61-0.87), 0.77 (0.69-0.86); and Delphi definition, 0.69 (0.55-0.83), 0.82 (0.75-0.90). Specificity was significantly higher for both the lung injury score and Delphi definition than for the American-European definition (p < .001 for both), whereas comparisons of sensitivity, which was higher for the American-European definition, were not significantly different (p = .34 and p = .07, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Acute respiratory distress syndrome appears underrecognized by clinicians in patients who die with this syndrome. In this population, the specificities of existing clinical definitions vary considerably, which may be problematic for clinical trials.

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 · 10.1097/01.ccm.0000181529.08630.49

Cites

10 of 10 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 10 references

Cited by

See all 249

Metadata

Authors
Ferguson, N. D., Frutos-Vivar, F., Esteban, A., Fernández-Segoviano, P., Aramburu, J. A., Nájera, L., & Stewart, T. E.
Venue
Critical Care Medicine
Published
2005-10
Volume
33
Issue
10
Pages
2228-2234
ISSN
0090-3493 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2014677827
Cited by
249
References
10
FWCI
8.63
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: Acute respiratory distress syndrome: Underrecognition by clinicians and diagnostic accuracy of three clinical definitions*. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1097/01.ccm.0000181529.08630.49
The paper
Ferguson, N. D., Frutos-Vivar, F., Esteban, A., Fernández-Segoviano, P., Aramburu, J. A., Nájera, L., & Stewart, T. E. (2005). Acute respiratory distress syndrome: Underrecognition by clinicians and diagnostic accuracy of three clinical definitions*. Critical Care Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.ccm.0000181529.08630.49

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.