Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 575

The DOI matches its OpenAlex record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Opinion leaders vs audit and feedback to implement practice guidelines. Delivery after previous cesarean section

J Lomas·1991·JAMA
DOI 10.1001/jama.265.17.2202
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

A randomized controlled trial with 76 physicians in 16 community hospitals evaluated audit and feedback and local opinion leader education as methods of encouraging compliance with a guideline for the management of women with a previous cesarean section. The guideline recommended clinical actions to increase trial of labor and vaginal birth rates. Charts for all 3552 cases in the study groups were audited. After 24 months the trial of labor and vaginal birth rates in the audit and feedback group were no different from those in the control group, but rates were 46% and 85% higher, respectively, among physicians educated by an opinion leader. Duration of hospital stay was lower in the opinion leader education group than in the other two groups. The overall cesarean section rate was reduced only in the opinion leader education group. There were no adverse clinical outcomes attributable to the interventions. The use of opinion leaders improved the quality of care. ( JAMA . 1991;265:2202-2207)

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

OpenAlex · 10.1001/jama.265.17.2202

Cites

2 of 2 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 2 references

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
Lomas, J.
Venue
JAMA
Publisher
American Medical Association
Published
1991-05-01
Volume
265
Issue
17
Pages
2202-2207
ISSN
0002-9955 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1001/jama.265.17.2202
OpenAlex
W3124784431
Cited by
575
References
2
FWCI
24.16
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

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.