Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 38

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

A comparative effectiveness study of eSource used for data capture for a clinical research registry

Nordo, Amy Harris, Eisenstein, Eric L., Hawley, Jeffrey, Vadakkeveedu, Sai, Pressley, Melissa, Pennock, Jennifer, Sanderson, Iain·2017·International Journal of Medical Informatics
DOI 10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2017.04.015PMC PMC5942198
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

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 · 10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2017.04.015

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Figures

Fig. 1 Traditional Data Transcription (non-eSource) workflow.
Fig. 1 Traditional Data Transcription (non-eSource) workflow.CC BY-NC-ND · PubMed Central
Fig. 2 eSource workflow.
Fig. 2 eSource workflow.CC BY-NC-ND · PubMed Central

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

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

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

Research works printed but not linked: 10

  1. Munos, 2009, Lessons from 60 years of pharmaceutical innovation, Nat. Rev. Drug Discov., 8, 959, 10.1038/nrd2961 · DOI
  2. Getz, 2014, Improving protocol design feasibility to drive drug development economics and performance, Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health, 12, 5069, 10.3390/ijerph110505069 · DOI
  3. Eisenstein, 2008, Sensible approaches for reducing clinical trial costs, Clin. Trials, 5, 75, 10.1177/1740774507087551 · DOI
  4. Morrison, 2011, Monitoring the quality of conduct of clinical trials: a survey of current practices, Clin. Trials, 8, 342, 10.1177/1740774511402703 · DOI
  5. Lobach, 2013, A randomized trial of population-based clinical decision support to manage health and resource use for medicaid beneficiaries, J. Med. Syst., 37, 9922, 10.1007/s10916-012-9922-3 · DOI
  6. Frobert, 2013, Thrombus aspiration during ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction, N. Engl. J. Med., 369, 1587, 10.1056/NEJMoa1308789 · DOI
  7. Botsis, 2010, Secondary use of EHR: data quality issues and informatics opportunities, Summit Trans Bioinf, 2010, 1
  8. Fadly, 2011, Integrating clinical research with the healthcare enterprise: from the RE-USE project to the EHR4CR platform, J. Biomed. Inform., 44, S94, 10.1016/j.jbi.2011.07.007 · DOI
  9. Ferranti, 2006, The clinical document architecture and the continuity of care record: a critical analysis, J. Am. Med. Inform. Assoc., 13, 245, 10.1197/jamia.M1963 · DOI
  10. Harris, 2009, Research electronic data capture (REDCap)—A metadata-driven methodology and workflow process for providing translational research informatics support, J. Biomed. Inform., 42, 377, 10.1016/j.jbi.2008.08.010 · DOI · Paper page

Cited by

See all 38

Metadata

Authors
Nordo, A. H., Eisenstein, E. L., Hawley, J., Vadakkeveedu, S., Pressley, M., Pennock, J., & Sanderson, I.
Venue
International Journal of Medical Informatics
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2017-07
Volume
103
Pages
89-94
ISSN
1386-5056
DOI
10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2017.04.015
PMC
PMC5942198
Cited by
38
References
2
Language
en
Licence

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: A comparative effectiveness study of eSource used for data capture for a clinical research registry. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2017.04.015
The paper
Nordo, A. H., Eisenstein, E. L., Hawley, J., Vadakkeveedu, S., Pressley, M., Pennock, J., & Sanderson, I. (2017). A comparative effectiveness study of eSource used for data capture for a clinical research registry. International Journal of Medical Informatics. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2017.04.015

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.