Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 968

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Randomized clinical trial of pressure-controlled inverse ratio ventilation and extracorporeal CO2 removal for adult respiratory distress syndrome.

Morris, A H, Wallace, C J, Menlove, R L, Clemmer, T P, Orme, J F, Weaver, L K, Dean, N C, Thomas, F, East, T D, Pace, N L, Suchyta, M R, Beck, E, Bombino, M, Sittig, D F, Böhm, S, Hoffmann, B, Becks, H, Butler, S, Pearl, J, Rasmusson, B·1994·American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine

Abstract

The impact of a new therapy that includes pressure-controlled inverse ratio ventilation followed by extracorporeal CO2 removal on the survival of patients with severe ARDS was evaluated in a randomized controlled clinical trial. Computerized protocols generated around-the-clock instructions for management of arterial oxygenation to assure equivalent intensity of care for patients randomized to the new therapy limb and those randomized to the control, mechanical ventilation limb. We randomized 40 patients with severe ARDS who met the ECMO entry criteria. The main outcome measure was survival at 30 days after randomization. Survival was not significantly different in the 19 mechanical ventilation (42%) and 21 new therapy (extracorporeal) (33%) patients (p = 0.8). All deaths occurred within 30 days of randomization. Overall patient survival was 38% (15 of 40) and was about four times that expected from historical data (p = 0.0002). Extracorporeal treatment group survival was not significantly different from other published survival rates after extracorporeal CO2 removal. Mechanical ventilation patient group survival was significantly higher than the 12% derived from published data (p = 0.0001). Protocols controlled care 86% of the time. Average PaO2 was 59 mm Hg in both treatment groups. Intensity of care required to maintain arterial oxygenation was similar in both groups (2.6 and 2.6 PEEP changes/day; 4.3 and 5.0 FIO2 changes/day). We conclude that there was no significant difference in survival between the mechanical ventilation and the extracorporeal CO2 removal groups. We do not recommend extracorporeal support as a therapy for ARDS. Extracorporeal support for ARDS should be restricted to controlled 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 · 10.1164/ajrccm.149.2.8306022

Cites

1 of 1 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

Cited by

See all 968

Metadata

Authors
Morris, A. H., Wallace, C. J., Menlove, R. L., Clemmer, T. P., Orme, J. F., Weaver, L. K., Dean, N. C., Thomas, F., East, T. D., Pace, N. L., Suchyta, M. R., Beck, E., Bombino, M., Sittig, D. F., Böhm, S., Hoffmann, B., Becks, H., Butler, S., Pearl, J., & Rasmusson, B.
Venue
American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine
Published
1994-02
Volume
149
Issue
2
Pages
295-305
ISSN
  • 1073-449X (ISSN-L)
  • 1535-4970
OpenAlex
W1984406996
Cited by
968
References
1
FWCI
44.12
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: Randomized clinical trial of pressure-controlled inverse ratio ventilation and extracorporeal CO2 removal for adult respiratory distress syndrome. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1164/ajrccm.149.2.8306022
The paper
Morris, A. H., Wallace, C. J., Menlove, R. L., Clemmer, T. P., Orme, J. F., Weaver, L. K., Dean, N. C., Thomas, F., East, T. D., Pace, N. L., Suchyta, M. R., Beck, E., Bombino, M., Sittig, D. F., Böhm, S., Hoffmann, B., Becks, H., Butler, S., Pearl, J., & Rasmusson, B. (1994). Randomized clinical trial of pressure-controlled inverse ratio ventilation and extracorporeal CO2 removal for adult respiratory distress syndrome. American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1164/ajrccm.149.2.8306022

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.