Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 187

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Underuse of lung protective ventilation: Analysis of potential factors to explain physician behavior*

Kalhan, Ravi, Mikkelsen, Mark, Dedhiya, Pali, Christie, Jason, Gaughan, Christine, Lanken, Paul N., Finkel, Barbara, Gallop, Robert, Fuchs, Barry D.·2006·Critical Care Medicine

Abstract

Objective: To determine the frequency of use of low-tidal-volume ventilation in appropriate patients with acute lung injury (ALI) and the factors associated with the choice of tidal volume. Design: Prospective observational cohort study of patients identified with ALI or acute respiratory distress syndrome from September 2000 to November 2002. Setting: Medical and surgical intensive care unit (ICU) at an academic tertiary-care hospital. Measurements and Main Results: Measurements included the proportion for whom the ventilation tidal volume (TV) was ≤7.5 mL/kg predicted body weight (PBW) on days 2, 4, and 7 of ALI and the proportion for whom the ventilation TV was ≤6.5 and ≤8.5 mL/kg/PBW (sensitivity analysis). Demographic and clinical characteristics of patients undergoing ventilation with low and high TV were compared. Of 88 total patients studied, 39% had ventilation with TV ≤7.5 mL/kg/PBW on day 2 of ALI, 49% on day 4, and 56% on day 7. In contrast, 49% of patients had ventilation with TV >8.5 mL/kg/PBW on day 2 of ALI, 30% on day 4, and 24% on day 7. The use of low TV was significantly associated with clinical parameters indicative of worse disease severity, including low values for Pao2 (p = .01), Pao2/Fio2 (p = .08), and static compliance of the respiratory system (p = .006). Conclusions: Ventilation with a low TV was used in a minority of patients with ALI, despite results published in 1998 and 2000 supporting this approach. This may be related to clinicians’ underrecognition of less severe cases of ALI, their reserving of low-TV ventilation for more severe cases, or both.

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.0000198328.83571.4a

Cites

4 of 4 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 4 references

Cited by

See all 187

Metadata

Authors
Kalhan, R., Mikkelsen, M., Dedhiya, P., Christie, J., Gaughan, C., Lanken, P. N., Finkel, B., Gallop, R., & Fuchs, B. D.
Venue
Critical Care Medicine
Published
2006-02
Volume
34
Issue
2
Pages
300-306
ISSN
0090-3493 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2015496433
Cited by
187
References
4
FWCI
12.08
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: Underuse of lung protective ventilation: Analysis of potential factors to explain physician behavior*. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1097/01.ccm.0000198328.83571.4a
The paper
Kalhan, R., Mikkelsen, M., Dedhiya, P., Christie, J., Gaughan, C., Lanken, P. N., Finkel, B., Gallop, R., & Fuchs, B. D. (2006). Underuse of lung protective ventilation: Analysis of potential factors to explain physician behavior*. Critical Care Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.ccm.0000198328.83571.4a

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.