The DOI matches its OpenAlex record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Users' Guides to the Medical Literature
Abstract
Medical practice is constantly changing. The rate of change is accelerating, and physicians can be forgiven if they often find it dizzying. How can physicians learn about new information and innovations, and decide how (if at all) they should modify their practice? Possible sources include summaries from the medical literature (review articles, practice guidelines, consensus statements, editorials, and summary articles in "throwaway" journals); consultation with colleagues who have special expertise; lectures; seminars; advertisements in medical journals; conversations with representatives from pharmaceutical companies; and original articles in journals and journal supplements. Each of these sources of information might be valuable, though each is subject to its own particular biases.1,2Problems arise when, as is often the case, these sources of information provide different suggestions about patient care. See also p 2093. Without a way of critically appraising the information they receive, clinicians are relatively helpless in deciding what new information
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
Helsinki Heart Study: Primary-Prevention Trial with Gemfibrozil in Middle-Aged Men with Dyslipidemia
Frick, M. H., Elo, O., Haapa, K., Heinonen, O. P., Heinsalmi, P., Helo, P., Huttunen, J. K., Kaitaniemi, P., Koskinen, P., Manninen, V., et al. (1987) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejm198711123172001 · Cited by 3,881
An Assessment of Clinically Useful Measures of the Consequences of Treatment
Laupacis, A., Sackett, D. L., & Roberts, R. S. (1988) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejm198806303182605 · Cited by 1,681
Cited by
Tong, A., Sainsbury, P., & Craig, J. (2007) · International Journal for Quality in Health Care · doi:10.1093/intqhc/mzm042 · Cited by 42,509
Liberati, A., Altman, D. G., Tetzlaff, J., Mulrow, C., Gøtzsche, P. C., Ioannidis, J. P. A., Clarke, M., Devereaux, P. J., Kleijnen, J., & Moher, D. (2009) · PLoS Medicine · doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1000100 · Cited by 28,164
Liberati, A., Altman, D. G., Tetzlaff, J., Mulrow, C., Gotzsche, P. C., Ioannidis, J. P. A., Clarke, M., Devereaux, P. J., Kleijnen, J., & Moher, D. (2009) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.b2700 · Cited by 17,648
Liberati, A., Altman, D. G., Tetzlaff, J., Mulrow, C., Gøtzsche, P. C., Ioannidis, J. P. A., Clarke, M., Devereaux, P. J., Kleijnen, J., & Moher, D. (2009) · Journal of Clinical Epidemiology · doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2009.06.006 · Cited by 10,578
Liberati, A., Altman, D. G., Tetzlaff, J., Mulrow, C., Gøtzsche, P. C., Ioannidis, J. P. A., Clarke, M., Devereaux, P. J., Kleijnen, J., & Moher, D. (2009) · Annals of Internal Medicine · doi:10.7326/0003-4819-151-4-200908180-00136 · Cited by 10,349
“Common markers of validity for randomized trials include the following: appropriate generation of random allocation sequence [94]; concealment of the allocation sequence [93]; blinding of participants, health care providers, data collectors, and outcome adjudicators [95,96,97,98]; proportion of patients lost to follow…”
Background
Metadata
- Authors
- Guyatt, G. H.
- Venue
- JAMA
- Publisher
- American Medical Association (AMA)
- Published
- 1993-11-03
- Volume
- 270
- Issue
- 17
- Pages
- 2096
- ISSN
- 0002-9955 (ISSN-L)
- 0098-7484
- OpenAlex
- W2161566871
- Cited by
- 2,970
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 59.73
- 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: Users' Guides to the Medical Literature. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1001/jama.270.17.2096
- The paper
- Guyatt, G. H. (1993). Users' Guides to the Medical Literature. JAMA. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.270.17.2096
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.
