The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
The Cochrane Collaboration: Preparing, Maintaining, and Disseminating Systematic Reviews of the Effects of Health Care
Abstract
WHERE SHOULD a physician look to find accurate, up-to-date information about the effectiveness of a variety of clinical interventions? At the bedside or in the office, physicians should have instantaneous, up-to-date assistance from an affordable, universally available database of systematic reviews of the best evidence from clinical trials. Unfortunately, the physician who tries to seek the best evidence is often thwarted. Textbooks and reviews are often unreliable and years out of date.1The searcher may find the MEDLINE database, surely one of the greatest achievements of US medicine, daunting and incomplete. Although well over 1 million clinical trials have been conducted, hundreds of thousands remain See also pp 1942 and 1962. unpublished or are hard to find and may be in various languages. In the unlikely event that the physician finds all the relevant trials of a treatment, these are rarely accompanied by any comprehensive systematic review attempting to
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
Schulz (1995) · doi:10.1001/jama.1995.03520290060030 · Cited by 5,634
Publication bias: the case for an international registry of clinical trials.
Simes, R. J. (1986) · Journal of Clinical Oncology · doi:10.1200/jco.1986.4.10.1529 · Cited by 747
CHALMERS, I. (1993) · Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1111/j.1749-6632.1993.tb26345.x · Cited by 561
Cited by
Tranfield, D., Denyer, D., & Smart, P. (2003) · British Journal of Management · doi:10.1111/1467-8551.00375 · Cited by 15,386
Moher, D., Cook, D. J., Eastwood, S., Olkin, I., Rennie, D., & Stroup, D. F. (1999) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(99)04149-5 · Cited by 4,826
The Handbook of Research Synthesis and Meta-Analysis
(2019) · doi:10.7758/9781610448864 · Cited by 4,553
Systematic Reviews: Synthesis of Best Evidence for Clinical Decisions
Cook, D. J., Mulrow, C. D., & Haynes, R. B. (1997) · Annals of Internal Medicine · doi:10.7326/0003-4819-126-5-199703010-00006 · Cited by 2,184
Storylines of research in diffusion of innovation: a meta-narrative approach to systematic review
Greenhalgh, T., Robert, G., Macfarlane, F., Bate, P., Kyriakidou, O., & Peacock, R. (2005) · Social Science & Medicine · doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2004.12.001 · Cited by 913
Metadata
- Authors
- Bero, L.
- Venue
- JAMA
- Publisher
- American Medical Association (AMA)
- Published
- 1995-12-27
- Volume
- 274
- Issue
- 24
- Pages
- 1935
- ISSN
- 0002-9955 (ISSN-L)
- 0098-7484
- OpenAlex
- W4239527626
- Cited by
- 714
- References
- 4
- FWCI
- 29.93
- 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: The Cochrane Collaboration: Preparing, Maintaining, and Disseminating Systematic Reviews of the Effects of Health Care. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1001/jama.1995.03530240045039
- The paper
- Bero, L. (1995). The Cochrane Collaboration: Preparing, Maintaining, and Disseminating Systematic Reviews of the Effects of Health Care. JAMA. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.1995.03530240045039
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.
