Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 308

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 22 of the 22 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Assessment of Lung Aeration and Recruitment by CT Scan and Ultrasound in Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome Patients*

Open access
Chiumello, Davide, Mongodi, Silvia, Algieri, Ilaria, Vergani, Giordano Luca, Orlando, Anita, Via, Gabriele, Crimella, Francesco, Cressoni, Massimo, Mojoli, Francesco·2018·Critical Care Medicine

Abstract

Objectives: Lung ultrasound is commonly used to evaluate lung morphology in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome. Aim of this study was to determine lung ultrasound reliability in assessing lung aeration and positive end-expiratory pressure–induced recruitment compared with CT. Design: Randomized crossover study. Setting: University hospital ICU. Patients: Twenty sedated paralyzed acute respiratory distress syndrome patients: age 56 years (43–72 yr), body mass index 25 kg/m 2 (22–27 kg/m 2), and Pa o 2/F io 2 160 (113–218). Interventions: Lung CT and lung ultrasound examination were performed at positive end-expiratory pressure 5 and 15 cm H 2 O. Measurements and Main Results: Global and regional Lung Ultrasound scores were compared with CT quantitative analysis. Lung recruitment (i.e., decrease in not aerated tissue as assessed with CT) was compared with global Lung Ultrasound score variations. Global Lung Ultrasound score was strongly associated with average lung tissue density at positive end-expiratory pressure 5 (R 2 = 0.78; p < 0.0001) and positive end-expiratory pressure 15 (R 2 = 0.62; p < 0.0001). Regional Lung Ultrasound score strongly correlated with tissue density at positive end-expiratory pressure 5 (r s = 0.79; p < 0.0001) and positive end-expiratory pressure 15 (r s = 0.79; p < 0.0001). Each step increase of regional Lung Ultrasound score was associated with significant increase of tissue density (p < 0.005). A substantial agreement was found between regional Lung Ultrasound score and CT classification at positive end-expiratory pressure 5 (k = 0.69 [0.63–0.75]) and at positive end-expiratory pressure 15 (k = 0.70 [0.64–0.75]). At positive end-expiratory pressure 15, both global Lung Ultrasound score (22 [16–27] vs 26 [21–29]; p < 0.0001) and not aerated tissue (42% [25–57%] vs 52% [39–67%]; p < 0.0001) decreased. However, Lung Ultrasound score variations were not associated with lung recruitment (R 2 = 0.01; p = 0.67). Conclusions: Lung Ultrasound score is a valid tool to assess regional and global lung aeration. Global Lung Ultrasound score variations should not be used for bedside assessment of positive end-expiratory pressure–induced recruitment.

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/ccm.0000000000003340

Cites

22 of 22 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 22 references

Cited by

See all 308

Metadata

Authors
Chiumello, D., Mongodi, S., Algieri, I., Vergani, G. L., Orlando, A., Via, G., Crimella, F., Cressoni, M., & Mojoli, F.
Venue
Critical Care Medicine
Published
2018-11
Volume
46
Issue
11
Pages
1761-1768
ISSN
0090-3493 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2883473174
Cited by
308
References
22
FWCI
22.13
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

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: Assessment of Lung Aeration and Recruitment by CT Scan and Ultrasound in Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome Patients*. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1097/ccm.0000000000003340
The paper
Chiumello, D., Mongodi, S., Algieri, I., Vergani, G. L., Orlando, A., Via, G., Crimella, F., Cressoni, M., & Mojoli, F. (2018). Assessment of Lung Aeration and Recruitment by CT Scan and Ultrasound in Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome Patients*. Critical Care Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1097/ccm.0000000000003340

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.