Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 282

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 72 of the 72 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Physical and Cognitive Performance of Patients with Acute Lung Injury 1 Year after Initial Trophic versus Full Enteral Feeding. EDEN Trial Follow-up

Open access
Needham, Dale M., Dinglas, Victor D., Morris, Peter E., Jackson, James C., Hough, Catherine L., Mendez-Tellez, Pedro A., Wozniak, Amy W., Colantuoni, Elizabeth, Ely, E. Wesley, Rice, Todd W., Hopkins, Ramona O., for the NIH NHLBI ARDS Network·2013·American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine

Abstract

RATIONALE: We hypothesized that providing patients with acute lung injury two different protein/calorie nutritional strategies in the intensive care unit may affect longer-term physical and cognitive performance. OBJECTIVES: To assess physical and cognitive performance 6 and 12 months after acute lung injury, and to evaluate the effect of trophic versus full enteral feeding, provided for the first 6 days of mechanical ventilation, on 6-minute-walk distance, cognitive impairment, and secondary outcomes. METHODS: A prospective, longitudinal ancillary study of the ARDS Network EDEN trial evaluating 174 consecutive survivors from 5 of 12 centers. Blinded assessments of patients' arm anthropometrics, strength, pulmonary function, 6-minute-walk distance, and cognitive status (executive function, language, memory, verbal reasoning/concept formation, and attention) were performed. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: At 6 and 12 months, respectively, the mean (SD) percent predicted for 6-minute-walk distance was 64% (22%) and 66% (25%) (P = 0.011 for difference between assessments), and 36 and 25% of survivors had cognitive impairment (P = 0.001). Patients performed below predicted values for secondary physical tests with small improvement from 6 to 12 months. There was no significant effect of initial trophic versus full feeding for the first 6 days after randomization on survivors' percent predicted for 6-minute-walk distance, cognitive impairment status, and all secondary outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: EDEN trial survivors performed below predicted values for physical and cognitive performance at 6 and 12 months, with some improvement over time. Initial trophic versus full enteral feeding for the first 6 days after randomization did not affect physical and cognitive performance.

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.201304-0651oc

Cites

72 of 72 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 72 references

Cited by

See all 282

Metadata

Authors
Needham, D. M., Dinglas, V. D., Morris, P. E., Jackson, J. C., Hough, C. L., Mendez-Tellez, P. A., Wozniak, A. W., Colantuoni, E., Ely, E. W., Rice, T. W., Hopkins, R. O., & for the NIH NHLBI ARDS Network
Venue
American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine
Published
2013-09-01
Volume
188
Issue
5
Pages
567-576
ISSN
  • 1073-449X (ISSN-L)
  • 1535-4970
OpenAlex
W2028893644
Cited by
282
References
72
FWCI
19.67
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: Physical and Cognitive Performance of Patients with Acute Lung Injury 1 Year after Initial Trophic versus Full Enteral Feeding. EDEN Trial Follow-up. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1164/rccm.201304-0651oc
The paper
Needham, D. M., Dinglas, V. D., Morris, P. E., Jackson, J. C., Hough, C. L., Mendez-Tellez, P. A., Wozniak, A. W., Colantuoni, E., Ely, E. W., Rice, T. W., Hopkins, R. O., & for the NIH NHLBI ARDS Network. (2013). Physical and Cognitive Performance of Patients with Acute Lung Injury 1 Year after Initial Trophic versus Full Enteral Feeding. EDEN Trial Follow-up. American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1164/rccm.201304-0651oc

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.