Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 459

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Diaphragm Dysfunction on Admission to the Intensive Care Unit. Prevalence, Risk Factors, and Prognostic Impact—A Prospective Study

Demoule, Alexandre, Jung, Boris, Prodanovic, Hélène, Molinari, Nicolas, Chanques, Gerald, Coirault, Catherine, Matecki, Stefan, Duguet, Alexandre, Similowski, Thomas, Jaber, Samir·2013·American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine

Abstract

RATIONALE: Diaphragmatic insults occurring during intensive care unit (ICU) stays have become the focus of intense research. However, diaphragmatic abnormalities at the initial phase of critical illness remain poorly documented in humans. OBJECTIVES: To determine the incidence, risk factors, and prognostic impact of diaphragmatic impairment on ICU admission. METHODS: Prospective, 6-month, observational cohort study in two ICUs. Mechanically ventilated patients were studied within 24 hours after intubation (Day 1) and 48 hours later (Day 3). Seventeen anesthetized intubated control anesthesia patients were also studied. The diaphragm was assessed by twitch tracheal pressure in response to bilateral anterior magnetic phrenic nerve stimulation (Ptr,stim). MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Eighty-five consecutive patients aged 62 (54-75) (median [interquartile range]) were evaluated (medical admission, 79%; Simplified Acute Physiology Score II, 54 [44-68]). On Day 1, Ptr,stim was 8.2 (5.9-12.3) cm H2O and 64% of patients had Ptr,stim less than 11 cm H2O. Independent predictors of low Ptr,stim were sepsis (linear regression coefficient, -3.74; standard error, 1.16; P = 0.002) and Simplified Acute Physiology Score II (linear regression coefficient, -0.07; standard error, 1.69; P = 0.03). Compared with nonsurvivors, ICU survivors had higher Ptr,stim (9.7 [6.3-13.8] vs. 7.3 [5.5-9.7] cm H2O; P = 0.004). This was also true for hospital survivors versus nonsurvivors (9.7 [6.3-13.5] vs. 7.8 [5.5-10.1] cm H2O; P = 0.004). Day 1 and Day 3 Ptr,stim were similar. CONCLUSIONS: A reduced capacity of the diaphragm to produce inspiratory pressure (diaphragm dysfunction) is frequent on ICU admission. It is associated with sepsis and disease severity, suggesting that it may represent another form of organ failure. It is associated with a poor prognosis. Clinical trial registered with www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT 00786526).

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.201209-1668oc

Cites

2 of 2 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 2 references

Cited by

See all 459

Metadata

Authors
Demoule, A., Jung, B., Prodanovic, H., Molinari, N., Chanques, G., Coirault, C., Matecki, S., Duguet, A., Similowski, T., & Jaber, S.
Venue
American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine
Published
2013-07-15
Volume
188
Issue
2
Pages
213-219
ISSN
  • 1073-449X (ISSN-L)
  • 1535-4970
OpenAlex
W2128678605
Cited by
459
References
2
FWCI
21.92
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: Diaphragm Dysfunction on Admission to the Intensive Care Unit. Prevalence, Risk Factors, and Prognostic Impact—A Prospective Study. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1164/rccm.201209-1668oc
The paper
Demoule, A., Jung, B., Prodanovic, H., Molinari, N., Chanques, G., Coirault, C., Matecki, S., Duguet, A., Similowski, T., & Jaber, S. (2013). Diaphragm Dysfunction on Admission to the Intensive Care Unit. Prevalence, Risk Factors, and Prognostic Impact—A Prospective Study. American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1164/rccm.201209-1668oc

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.