Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 349

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 6 of the 6 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

A Randomized Trial of an Intensive Physical Therapy Program for Patients with Acute Respiratory Failure

Open access
Moss, Marc, Nordon-Craft, Amy, Malone, Dan, Van Pelt, David, Frankel, Stephen K., Warner, Mary Laird, Kriekels, Wendy, McNulty, Monica, Fairclough, Diane L., Schenkman, Margaret·2016·American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine

Abstract

RATIONALE: Early physical therapy (PT) interventions may benefit patients with acute respiratory failure by preventing or attenuating neuromuscular weakness. However, the optimal dosage of these interventions is currently unknown. OBJECTIVES: To determine whether an intensive PT program significantly improves long-term physical functional performance compared with a standard-of-care PT program. METHODS: Patients who required mechanical ventilation for at least 4 days were eligible. Enrolled patients were randomized to receive PT for up to 4 weeks delivered in an intensive or standard-of-care manner. Physical functional performance was assessed at 1, 3, and 6 months in survivors who were not currently in an acute or long-term care facility. The primary outcome was the Continuous Scale Physical Functional Performance Test short form (CS-PFP-10) score at 1 month. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: A total of 120 patients were enrolled from five hospitals. Patients in the intensive PT group received 12.4 ± 6.5 sessions for a total of 408 ± 261 minutes compared with only 6.1 ± 3.8 sessions for 86 ± 63 minutes in the standard-of-care group (P < 0.001 for both analyses). Physical function assessments were available for 86% of patients at 1 month, for 76% at 3 months, and for 60% at 6 months. In both groups, physical function was reduced yet significantly improved over time between 1, 3, and 6 months. When we compared the two interventions, we found no differences in the total CS-PFP-10 scores at all three time points (P = 0.73, 0.29, and 0.43, respectively) or in the total CS-PFP-10 score trajectory (P = 0.71). CONCLUSIONS: An intensive PT program did not improve long-term physical functional performance compared with a standard-of-care program. Clinical trial registered with www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT01058421).

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.201505-1039oc

Cites

6 of 6 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 6 references

Cited by

See all 349

Metadata

Authors
Moss, M., Nordon-Craft, A., Malone, D., Van Pelt, D., Frankel, S. K., Warner, M. L., Kriekels, W., McNulty, M., Fairclough, D. L., & Schenkman, M.
Venue
American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine
Published
2016-05-15
Volume
193
Issue
10
Pages
1101-1110
ISSN
  • 1073-449X (ISSN-L)
  • 1535-4970
OpenAlex
W2193015193
Cited by
349
References
6
FWCI
25.91
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 Randomized Trial of an Intensive Physical Therapy Program for Patients with Acute Respiratory Failure. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1164/rccm.201505-1039oc
The paper
Moss, M., Nordon-Craft, A., Malone, D., Van Pelt, D., Frankel, S. K., Warner, M. L., Kriekels, W., McNulty, M., Fairclough, D. L., & Schenkman, M. (2016). A Randomized Trial of an Intensive Physical Therapy Program for Patients with Acute Respiratory Failure. American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1164/rccm.201505-1039oc

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.