Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 406

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 40 of the 40 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

A Multicenter Randomized Trial of Computer-driven Protocolized Weaning from Mechanical Ventilation

Open access
Lellouche, Francçois, Mancebo, Jordi, Jolliet, Philippe, Roeseler, Jean, Schortgen, Fréderique, Dojat, Michel, Cabello, Belen, Bouadma, Lila, Rodriguez, Pablo, Maggiore, Salvatore, Reynaert, Marc, Mersmann, Stefan, Brochard, Laurent·2006·American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine
DOI 10.1164/rccm.200511-1780oc
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: Duration of weaning from mechanical ventilation may be reduced by the use of a systematic approach. We assessed whether a closed-loop knowledge-based algorithm introduced in a ventilator to act as a computer-driven weaning protocol can improve patient outcomes as compared with usual care. METHODS AND MEASUREMENTS: We conducted a multicenter randomized controlled study with concealed allocation to compare usual care for weaning with computer-driven weaning. The computerized protocol included an automatic gradual reduction in pressure support, automatic performance of spontaneous breathing trials (SBT), and generation of an incentive message when an SBT was successfully passed. One hundred forty-four patients were enrolled before weaning initiation. They were randomly allocated to computer-driven weaning or to physician-controlled weaning according to local guidelines. Weaning duration until successful extubation and total duration of ventilation were the primary endpoints. MAIN RESULTS: Weaning duration was reduced in the computer-driven group from a median of 5 to 3 d (p=0.01) and total duration of mechanical ventilation from 12 to 7.5 d (p=0.003). Reintubation rate did not differ (23 vs. 16%, p=0.40). Computer-driven weaning also decreased median intensive care unit (ICU) stay duration from 15.5 to 12 d (p=0.02) and caused no adverse events. The amount of sedation did not differ between groups. In the usual care group, compliance to recommended modes and to SBT was estimated, respectively, at 96 and 51%. CONCLUSIONS: The specific computer-driven system used in this study can reduce mechanical ventilation duration and ICU length of stay, as compared with a physician-controlled weaning process.

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.200511-1780oc

Cites

40 of 40 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 40 references

Cited by

See all 406

Metadata

Authors
Lellouche, F., Mancebo, J., Jolliet, P., Roeseler, J., Schortgen, F., Dojat, M., Cabello, B., Bouadma, L., Rodriguez, P., Maggiore, S., Reynaert, M., Mersmann, S., & Brochard, L.
Venue
American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine
Publisher
Oxford University Press (OUP)
Published
2006-10-15
Volume
174
Issue
8
Pages
894-900
ISSN
  • 1073-449X (ISSN-L)
  • 1535-4970
DOI
10.1164/rccm.200511-1780oc
OpenAlex
W2119177799
Cited by
406
References
40
FWCI
25.22
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: A Multicenter Randomized Trial of Computer-driven Protocolized Weaning from Mechanical Ventilation. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1164/rccm.200511-1780oc
The paper
Lellouche, F., Mancebo, J., Jolliet, P., Roeseler, J., Schortgen, F., Dojat, M., Cabello, B., Bouadma, L., Rodriguez, P., Maggiore, S., Reynaert, M., Mersmann, S., & Brochard, L. (2006). A Multicenter Randomized Trial of Computer-driven Protocolized Weaning from Mechanical Ventilation. American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1164/rccm.200511-1780oc

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.