Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 608

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 55 of the 55 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Evolution of Diaphragm Thickness during Mechanical Ventilation. Impact of Inspiratory Effort

Goligher, Ewan C., Fan, Eddy, Herridge, Margaret S., Murray, Alistair, Vorona, Stefannie, Brace, Debbie, Rittayamai, Nuttapol, Lanys, Ashley, Tomlinson, George, Singh, Jeffrey M., Bolz, Steffen-Sebastian, Rubenfeld, Gordon D., Kavanagh, Brian P., Brochard, Laurent J., Ferguson, Niall D.·2015·American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine

Abstract

RATIONALE: Diaphragm atrophy and dysfunction have been reported in humans during mechanical ventilation, but the prevalence, causes, and functional impact of changes in diaphragm thickness during routine mechanical ventilation for critically ill patients are unknown. OBJECTIVES: To describe the evolution of diaphragm thickness over time during mechanical ventilation, its impact on diaphragm function, and the influence of inspiratory effort on this phenomenon. METHODS: In three academic intensive care units, 107 patients were enrolled shortly after initiating ventilation along with 10 nonventilated intensive care unit patients (control subjects). Diaphragm thickness and contractile activity (quantified by the inspiratory thickening fraction) were measured daily by ultrasound. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Over the first week of ventilation, diaphragm thickness decreased by more than 10% in 47 (44%), was unchanged in 47 (44%), and increased by more than 10% in 13 (12%). Thickness did not vary over time following extubation or in nonventilated patients. Low diaphragm contractile activity was associated with rapid decreases in diaphragm thickness, whereas high contractile activity was associated with increases in diaphragm thickness (P = 0.002). Contractile activity decreased with increasing ventilator driving pressure (P = 0.01) and controlled ventilator modes (P = 0.02). Maximal thickening fraction (a measure of diaphragm function) was lower in patients with decreased or increased diaphragm thickness (n = 10) compared with patients with unchanged thickness (n = 10; P = 0.05 for comparison). CONCLUSIONS: Changes in diaphragm thickness are common during mechanical ventilation and may be associated with diaphragmatic weakness. Titrating ventilatory support to maintain normal levels of inspiratory effort may prevent changes in diaphragm configuration associated with mechanical ventilation.

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.201503-0620oc

Cites

55 of 55 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 55 references

Cited by

See all 608

Metadata

Authors
Goligher, E. C., Fan, E., Herridge, M. S., Murray, A., Vorona, S., Brace, D., Rittayamai, N., Lanys, A., Tomlinson, G., Singh, J. M., Bolz, S.-S., Rubenfeld, G. D., Kavanagh, B. P., Brochard, L. J., & Ferguson, N. D.
Venue
American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine
Published
2015-11-01
Volume
192
Issue
9
Pages
1080-1088
ISSN
  • 1073-449X (ISSN-L)
  • 1535-4970
OpenAlex
W2096856225
Cited by
608
References
55
FWCI
29.97
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: Evolution of Diaphragm Thickness during Mechanical Ventilation. Impact of Inspiratory Effort. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1164/rccm.201503-0620oc
The paper
Goligher, E. C., Fan, E., Herridge, M. S., Murray, A., Vorona, S., Brace, D., Rittayamai, N., Lanys, A., Tomlinson, G., Singh, J. M., Bolz, S.-S., Rubenfeld, G. D., Kavanagh, B. P., Brochard, L. J., & Ferguson, N. D. (2015). Evolution of Diaphragm Thickness during Mechanical Ventilation. Impact of Inspiratory Effort. American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1164/rccm.201503-0620oc

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.