Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 748

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Users' Guides to the Medical Literature: XXV. Evidence-Based Medicine: Principles for Applying the Users' Guides to Patient Care

Guyatt, Gordon H., Haynes, R. Brian, Jaeschke, Roman Z., Cook, Deborah J., Green, Lee, Naylor, C. David, Wilson, Mark C., Richardson, W. Scott, for the Evidence-Based Medicine Working Group·2000·JAMA

Abstract

This series provides clinicians with strategies and tools to interpret and integrate evidence from published research in their care of patients. The 2 key principles for applying all the articles in this series to patient care relate to the value-laden nature of clinical decisions and to the hierarchy of evidence postulated by evidence-based medicine. Clinicians need to be able to distinguish high from low quality in primary studies, systematic reviews, practice guidelines, and other integrative research focused on management recommendations. An evidence-based practitioner must also understand the patient's circumstances or predicament; identify knowledge gaps and frame questions to fill those gaps; conduct an efficient literature search; critically appraise the research evidence; and apply that evidence to patient care. However, treatment judgments often reflect clinician or societal values concerning whether intervention benefits are worth the cost. Many unanswered questions concerning how to elicit preferences and how to incorporate them in clinical encounters constitute an enormously challenging frontier for evidence-based medicine. Time limitation remains the biggest obstacle to evidence-based practice but clinicians should seek evidence from as high in the appropriate hierarchy of evidence as possible, and every clinical decision should be geared toward the particular circumstances of the patient.

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 · 10.1001/jama.284.10.1290

Cites

4 of 4 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

Cited by

See all 748

Metadata

Authors
Guyatt, G. H., Haynes, R. B., Jaeschke, R. Z., Cook, D. J., Green, L., Naylor, C. D., Wilson, M. C., Richardson, W. S., & for the Evidence-Based Medicine Working Group
Venue
JAMA
Published
2000-09-13
Volume
284
Issue
10
Pages
1290
ISSN
  • 0002-9955 (ISSN-L)
  • 0098-7484
OpenAlex
W1974689215
Cited by
748
References
4
FWCI
66.85
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: XXV. Evidence-Based Medicine: Principles for Applying the Users' Guides to Patient Care. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1001/jama.284.10.1290
The paper
Guyatt, G. H., Haynes, R. B., Jaeschke, R. Z., Cook, D. J., Green, L., Naylor, C. D., Wilson, M. C., Richardson, W. S., & for the Evidence-Based Medicine Working Group. (2000). Users' Guides to the Medical Literature: XXV. Evidence-Based Medicine: Principles for Applying the Users' Guides to Patient Care. JAMA. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.284.10.1290

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.