The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Computed Tomography Assessment of Positive End-expiratory Pressure-induced Alveolar Recruitment in Patients with Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome
Abstract
Computed tomography (CT) assessment of positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP)-induced alveolar recruitment is classically achieved by quantifying the decrease in nonaerated lung parenchyma on a single juxtadiaphragmatic section (Gattinoni's method). This approach ignores the alveolar recruitment occurring in poorly aerated lung areas and may not reflect the alveolar recruitment of the entire lung. This study describes a new CT method in which PEEP-induced alveolar recruitment is computed as the volume of gas penetrating in poorly and nonaerated lung regions following PEEP. In 16 patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome a thoracic spiral CT scan was performed in ZEEP and PEEP 15 cm H(2)O. According to the new method, PEEP induced a 119% increase in functional residual capacity (FRC). PEEP-induced alveolar recruitment was 499 +/- 279 ml whereas distension and overdistension of previously aerated lung areas were 395 +/- 382 ml and 28 +/- 6 ml, respectively. The alveolar recruitment according to Gattinoni's method was 26 +/- 24 g and no correlation was found between both methods. A significant correlation was found between PEEP-induced alveolar recruitment and increase in Pa(O(2)) only when recruitment was assessed by the new method (Rho = 0.76, p = 0.003), suggesting that it may be more accurate than Gattinoni's method.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
STATISTICAL METHODS FOR ASSESSING AGREEMENT BETWEEN TWO METHODS OF CLINICAL MEASUREMENT
Martin Bland, J., & Altman, D. (1986) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(86)90837-8 · Cited by 47,965
Bernard, G. R., Artigas, A., Brigham, K. L., Carlet, J., Falke, K., Hudson, L., Lamy, M., Legall, J. R., Morris, A., & Spragg, R. (1994) · American journal of respiratory and critical care medicine · doi:10.1164/ajrccm.149.3.7509706 · Cited by 6,746
Cited by
Reinius, H., Jonsson, L., Gustafsson, S., Sundbom, M., Duvernoy, O., Pelosi, P., Hedenstierna, G., & Fredén, F. (2009) · Anesthesiology · doi:10.1097/aln.0b013e3181b87edb · Cited by 357
The "baby lung" became an adult
Gattinoni, L., Marini, J. J., Pesenti, A., Quintel, M., Mancebo, J., & Brochard, L. (2016) · Intensive Care Medicine · doi:10.1007/s00134-015-4200-8 · Cited by 304
Thiel, M., Chouker, A., Ohta, A., Jackson, E., Caldwell, C., Smith, P., Lukashev, D., Bittmann, I., & Sitkovsky, M. V. (2005) · PLoS Biology · doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.0030174 · Cited by 287
Jung, B., Nougaret, S., Chanques, G., Mercier, G., Cisse, M., Aufort, S., Gallix, B., Annane, D., & Jaber, S. (2011) · Anesthesiology · doi:10.1097/aln.0b013e318225cfd7 · Cited by 42
Metadata
- Authors
- MALBOUISSON, L. M., MULLER, J.-C., CONSTANTIN, J.-M., LU, Q., PUYBASSET, L., ROUBY, J.-J., & the CT Scan ARDS Study Group
- Venue
- American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2001-05-01
- Volume
- 163
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 1444-1450
- ISSN
- 1073-449X (ISSN-L)
- 1535-4970
- OpenAlex
- W2072111906
- Cited by
- 330
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 12.13
- 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: Computed Tomography Assessment of Positive End-expiratory Pressure-induced Alveolar Recruitment in Patients with Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1164/ajrccm.163.6.2005001
- The paper
- MALBOUISSON, L. M., MULLER, J.-C., CONSTANTIN, J.-M., LU, Q., PUYBASSET, L., ROUBY, J.-J., & the CT Scan ARDS Study Group. (2001). Computed Tomography Assessment of Positive End-expiratory Pressure-induced Alveolar Recruitment in Patients with Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome. American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1164/ajrccm.163.6.2005001
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.