Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 300

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Diagnostic Strategy for Hematology and Oncology Patients with Acute Respiratory Failure: Randomized Controlled Trial

Azoulay, Élie, Mokart, Djamel, Lambert, Jérôme, Lemiale, Virginie, Rabbat, Antoine, Kouatchet, Achille, Vincent, François, Gruson, Didier, Bruneel, Fabrice, Epinette-Branche, Géraldine, Lafabrie, Ariane, Hamidfar-Roy, Rebecca, Cracco, Christophe, Renard, Benoît, Tonnelier, Jean-Marie, Blot, François, Chevret, Sylvie, Schlemmer, Benoît·2010·American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine

Abstract

RATIONALE: Respiratory events are common in hematology and oncology patients and manifest as hypoxemic acute respiratory failure (ARF) in up to half the cases. Identifying the cause of ARF is crucial. Fiberoptic bronchoscopy with bronchoalveolar lavage (FO-BAL) is an invasive test that may cause respiratory deterioration. Recent noninvasive diagnostic tests may have modified the risk/benefit ratio of FO-BAL. OBJECTIVES: To determine whether FO-BAL in cancer patients with ARF increased the need for intubation and whether noninvasive testing alone was not inferior to noninvasive testing plus FO-BAL. METHODS: We performed a multicenter randomized controlled trial with sample size calculations for both end points. Patients with cancer and ARF of unknown cause who were not receiving ventilatory support at intensive care unit admission were randomized to early FO-BAL plus noninvasive tests (n = 113) or noninvasive tests only (n = 106). The primary end point was the number of patients needing intubation and mechanical ventilation. The major secondary end point was the number of patients with no identified cause of ARF. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: The need for mechanical ventilation was not significantly greater in the FO-BAL group than in the noninvasive group (35.4 vs. 38.7%; P = 0.62). The proportion of patients with no diagnosis was not smaller in the noninvasive group (21.7 vs. 20.4%; difference, -1.3% [-10.4 to 7.7]). CONCLUSIONS: FO-BAL performed in the intensive care unit did not significantly increase intubation requirements in critically ill cancer patients with ARF. Noninvasive testing alone was not inferior to noninvasive testing plus FO-BAL for identifying the cause of ARF. Clinical trial registered with www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT00248443).

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.201001-0018oc

Cites

3 of 3 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 3 references

Cited by

See all 300

Metadata

Authors
Azoulay, É., Mokart, D., Lambert, J., Lemiale, V., Rabbat, A., Kouatchet, A., Vincent, F., Gruson, D., Bruneel, F., Epinette-Branche, G., Lafabrie, A., Hamidfar-Roy, R., Cracco, C., Renard, B., Tonnelier, J.-M., Blot, F., Chevret, S., & Schlemmer, B.
Venue
American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine
Published
2010-10-15
Volume
182
Issue
8
Pages
1038-1046
ISSN
  • 1073-449X (ISSN-L)
  • 1535-4970
OpenAlex
W2615031059
Cited by
300
References
3
FWCI
13.77
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: Diagnostic Strategy for Hematology and Oncology Patients with Acute Respiratory Failure: Randomized Controlled Trial. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1164/rccm.201001-0018oc
The paper
Azoulay, É., Mokart, D., Lambert, J., Lemiale, V., Rabbat, A., Kouatchet, A., Vincent, F., Gruson, D., Bruneel, F., Epinette-Branche, G., Lafabrie, A., Hamidfar-Roy, R., Cracco, C., Renard, B., Tonnelier, J.-M., Blot, F., Chevret, S., & Schlemmer, B. (2010). Diagnostic Strategy for Hematology and Oncology Patients with Acute Respiratory Failure: Randomized Controlled Trial. American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1164/rccm.201001-0018oc

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.