Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 565

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

A Multicenter Trial of Prolonged Prone Ventilation in Severe Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome

Mancebo, Jordi, Fernández, Rafael, Blanch, Lluis, Rialp, Gemma, Gordo, Federico, Ferrer, Miquel, Rodríguez, Fernando, Garro, Pau, Ricart, Pilar, Vallverdú, Immaculada, Gich, Ignasi, Castaño, José, Saura, Pilar, Domínguez, Guillermo, Bonet, Alfons, Albert, Richard K.·2006·American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine

Abstract

RATIONALE: Ventilation in the prone position for about 7 h/d in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), acute lung injury, or acute respiratory failure does not decrease mortality. Whether it is beneficial to administer prone ventilation early, and for longer periods of time, is unknown. METHODS: We enrolled 136 patients within 48 h of tracheal intubation for severe ARDS, 60 randomized to supine and 76 to prone ventilation. Guidelines were established for ventilator settings and weaning. The prone group was targeted to receive continuous prone ventilation treatment for 20 h/d. RESULTS: The intensive care unit mortality was 58% (35/60) in the patients ventilated supine and 43% (33/76) in the patients ventilated prone (p = 0.12). The latter had a higher simplified acute physiology score II at inclusion. Multivariate analysis showed that simplified acute physiology score II at inclusion (odds ratio [OR], 1.07; p < 0.001), number of days elapsed between ARDS diagnosis and inclusion (OR, 2.83; p < 0.001), and randomization to supine position (OR, 2.53; p = 0.03) were independent risk factors for mortality. A total of 718 turning procedures were done, and prone position was applied for a mean of 17 h/d for a mean of 10 d. A total of 28 complications were reported, and most were rapidly reversible. CONCLUSION: Prone ventilation is feasible and safe, and may reduce mortality in patients with severe ARDS when it is initiated early and applied for most of the day.

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/rccm.200503-353oc

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 565

Metadata

Authors
Mancebo, J., Fernández, R., Blanch, L., Rialp, G., Gordo, F., Ferrer, M., Rodríguez, F., Garro, P., Ricart, P., Vallverdú, I., Gich, I., Castaño, J., Saura, P., Domínguez, G., Bonet, A., & Albert, R. K.
Venue
American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine
Published
2006-06-01
Volume
173
Issue
11
Pages
1233-1239
ISSN
  • 1073-449X (ISSN-L)
  • 1535-4970
OpenAlex
W2104961217
Cited by
565
References
5
FWCI
29.52
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 Multicenter Trial of Prolonged Prone Ventilation in Severe Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1164/rccm.200503-353oc
The paper
Mancebo, J., Fernández, R., Blanch, L., Rialp, G., Gordo, F., Ferrer, M., Rodríguez, F., Garro, P., Ricart, P., Vallverdú, I., Gich, I., Castaño, J., Saura, P., Domínguez, G., Bonet, A., & Albert, R. K. (2006). A Multicenter Trial of Prolonged Prone Ventilation in Severe Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome. American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1164/rccm.200503-353oc

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.