Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 365

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 36 of the 36 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Endobronchial Valve Therapy in Patients with Homogeneous Emphysema. Results from the IMPACT Study

Valipour, Arschang, Slebos, Dirk-Jan, Herth, Felix, Darwiche, Kaid, Wagner, Manfred, Ficker, Joachim H., Petermann, Christoph, Hubner, Ralf-Harto, Stanzel, Franz, Eberhardt, Ralf·2016·American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine

Abstract

Abstract Rationale Endobronchial valves (EBVs) have been successfully used in patients with severe heterogeneous emphysema to improve lung physiology. Limited available data suggest that EBVs are also effective in homogeneous emphysema. Objectives To evaluate the efficacy and safety of EBVs in patients with homogeneous emphysema with absence of collateral ventilation assessed with the Chartis system. Methods Prospective, multicenter, 1:1 randomized controlled trial of EBV plus standard of care (SoC) or SoC alone. Primary outcome was the percentage change in FEV1 (liters) at 3 months relative to baseline in the EBV group versus the SoC group. Secondary outcomes included changes in FEV1, St. George’s Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ), 6-minute-walk distance (6MWD), and target lobe volume reduction. Measurements and Main Results Ninety-three subjects (age, 63.7 ± 6.1 yr [mean ± SD]; FEV1, % predicted, 29.3 ± 6.5; residual volume, % predicted, 275.4 ± 59.4) were allocated to either the EBV group (n = 43) or the SoC group (n = 50). In the intention-to-treat population, at 3 months postprocedure, improvement in FEV1 from baseline was 13.7 ± 28.2% in the EBV group and −3.2 ± 13.0% in the SoC group (mean between-group difference, 17.0%; P = 0.0002). Other variables demonstrated statistically and clinically significant changes from baseline to 3 months (EBV vs. SoC, respectively: SGRQ, −8.63 ± 11.25 vs. 1.01 ± 9.36; and 6MWD, 22.63 ± 66.63 m vs. −17.34 ± 52.8 m). Target lobe volume reduction at 3 months was −1,195 ± 683 ml (P < 0.0001). Of the EBV subjects, 97.2% achieved volume reduction in the target lobe (P < 0.0001). Procedure-related pneumothoraces occurred in 11 subjects (25.6%). Five subjects required removal/replacement of one or more valves. One subject experienced two valve migration events requiring removal/replacement of valves. Conclusions EBV in patients with homogeneous emphysema without collateral ventilation results in clinically meaningful benefits of improved lung function, exercise tolerance, and quality of life.

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.201607-1383oc

Cites

36 of 36 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 36 references

Cited by

See all 365

Metadata

Authors
Valipour, A., Slebos, D.-J., Herth, F., Darwiche, K., Wagner, M., Ficker, J. H., Petermann, C., Hubner, R.-H., Stanzel, F., & Eberhardt, R.
Venue
American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine
Published
2016-11-01
Volume
194
Issue
9
Pages
1073-1082
ISSN
  • 1073-449X (ISSN-L)
  • 1535-4970
OpenAlex
W2507196609
Cited by
365
References
36
FWCI
33.63
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: Endobronchial Valve Therapy in Patients with Homogeneous Emphysema. Results from the IMPACT Study. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1164/rccm.201607-1383oc
The paper
Valipour, A., Slebos, D.-J., Herth, F., Darwiche, K., Wagner, M., Ficker, J. H., Petermann, C., Hubner, R.-H., Stanzel, F., & Eberhardt, R. (2016). Endobronchial Valve Therapy in Patients with Homogeneous Emphysema. Results from the IMPACT Study. American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1164/rccm.201607-1383oc

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.