Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 327

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 5 of the 5 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

A randomized trial of intermittent lorazepam versus propofol with daily interruption in mechanically ventilated patients*

Carson, Shannon S., Kress, John P., Rodgers, Jo Ellen, Vinayak, Ajeet, Campbell-Bright, Stacy, Levitt, Joseph, Bourdet, Sharya, Ivanova, Anastasia, Henderson, Ashley G., Pohlman, Anne, Chang, Lydia, Rich, Preston B., Hall, Jesse·2006·Critical Care Medicine

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To compare duration of mechanical ventilation for patients randomized to receive lorazepam by intermittent bolus administration vs. continuous infusions of propofol using protocols that include scheduled daily interruption of sedation. DESIGN: A randomized open-label trial enrolling patients from October 2001 to March 2004. SETTING: Medical intensive care units of two tertiary care medical centers. PATIENTS: Adult patients expected to require mechanical ventilation for >48 hrs and who required > or =10 mg of lorazepam or a continuous infusion of a sedative to achieve adequate sedation. INTERVENTIONS: Patients were randomized to receive lorazepam by intermittent bolus administration or propofol by continuous infusion to maintain a Ramsay score of 2-3. Sedation was interrupted on a daily basis for both groups. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: The primary outcome was median ventilator days. Secondary outcomes included 28-day ventilator-free survival, intensive care unit and hospital length of stay, and hospital mortality. Median ventilator days were significantly lower in the daily interruption propofol group compared with the intermittent bolus lorazepam group (5.8 vs. 8.4, p = .04). The difference was largest for hospital survivors (4.4 vs. 9.0, p = .006). There was a trend toward greater ventilator-free survival for patients in the daily interruption propofol group (median 18.5 days for propofol vs. 10.2 for lorazepam, p = .06). Hospital mortality was not different. CONCLUSIONS: For medical patients requiring >48 hrs of mechanical ventilation, sedation with propofol results in significantly fewer ventilator days compared with intermittent lorazepam when sedatives are interrupted daily.

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.0000215513.63207.7f

Cites

5 of 5 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 5 references

Cited by

See all 327

Metadata

Authors
Carson, S. S., Kress, J. P., Rodgers, J. E., Vinayak, A., Campbell-Bright, S., Levitt, J., Bourdet, S., Ivanova, A., Henderson, A. G., Pohlman, A., Chang, L., Rich, P. B., & Hall, J.
Venue
Critical Care Medicine
Published
2006-05
Volume
34
Issue
5
Pages
1326-1332
ISSN
0090-3493 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2151086162
Cited by
327
References
5
FWCI
19.49
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: A randomized trial of intermittent lorazepam versus propofol with daily interruption in mechanically ventilated patients*. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1097/01.ccm.0000215513.63207.7f
The paper
Carson, S. S., Kress, J. P., Rodgers, J. E., Vinayak, A., Campbell-Bright, S., Levitt, J., Bourdet, S., Ivanova, A., Henderson, A. G., Pohlman, A., Chang, L., Rich, P. B., & Hall, J. (2006). A randomized trial of intermittent lorazepam versus propofol with daily interruption in mechanically ventilated patients*. Critical Care Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.ccm.0000215513.63207.7f

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.