Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 291

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 59 of the 59 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Targeting intensive glycaemic control versus targeting conventional glycaemic control for type 2 diabetes mellitus

Open access
Hemmingsen, Bianca, Lund, Søren S, Gluud, Christian, Vaag, Allan, Almdal, Thomas P, Wetterslev, Jørn·2015·Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Abstract

The Cochrane Metabolic and Endocrine Disorders Group withdrew this review as of Issue 7, 2015 because the involvement of two authors (C Hemmingsen and SS Lund) being employed in pharmaceutical companies. The authors of the review and the Cochrane Metabolic and Endocrine Disorders Group did not find that this was a breach of the rules of the Cochrane Collaboration at the time when it was published. However, after the publication of the review, the Cochrane Collaboration requested withdrawal of the review due to the employment of the two authors. A new protocol for a review to cover this topic will be published. This will have a new title and a markedly improved protocol fulfilling new and important developments and standards within the Cochrane Collaboration as well as an improved inclusion and search strategy making it necessary to embark on a completely new review project. The editorial group responsible for this previously published document have withdrawn it from publication.

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 · 10.1002/14651858.cd008143.pub4This paper is marked retracted.

Cites

59 of 59 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

Cited by

See all 291

Metadata

Authors
Hemmingsen, B., Lund, S. S., Gluud, C., Vaag, A., Almdal, T. P., & Wetterslev, J.
Venue
Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2015-07-29
Volume
2015
Issue
7
Pages
CD008143-CD008143
ISSN
  • 1361-6137 (ISSN-L)
  • 1465-1858
OpenAlex
W1998186571
Cited by
291
References
59
FWCI
36.71
Type
journal article
Language
en
Status
Retracted
Open access
green

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.