Cited by 250Statistical Methods in Clinical TrialsHistorical Medical Research and TreatmentsClinical practice guidelines implementation

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 8 of the 9 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

The history and fate of the gold standard

Open access

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/s0140-6736(15)60742-5

Cites

8 of 8 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

  • Typical economic evaluation findings (e.g., based on clinical trials) are rarely sufficient to inform decisions about how health service organizations and policymakers should finance investments in EBPs.

    “However, the findings of typical economic evaluations (e.g., based on clinical trials) are rarely sufficient to inform decisions about how health service organizations and policymakers should finance investments in EBPs.”

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 9 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Jones, D. S., & Podolsky, S. H.
Affiliations
Harvard University (US)
Corresponding author
Podolsky, Scott H
Venue
The Lancet
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2015-04
Volume
385
Issue
9977
Pages
1502-1503
ISSN
  • 0099-5355 (ISSN-L)
  • 0140-6736
OpenAlex
W1964472634
Cited by
250
References
9
Citations by year
2026: 14 · 2025: 37 · 2024: 33 · 2023: 38 · 2022: 25 · 2021: 49 · 2020: 19 · 2019: 7 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 13 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 3
FWCI
7.73
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • The Lancet (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Digital Access to Scholarship at Harvard (DASH) (Harvard University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods in Clinical Trials
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pharmacology (medical) › Historical Medical Research and Treatments
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Clinical practice guidelines implementation
Keywords
randomized controlled trials, gold standard, evidence-based medicine, research methodology, big data, intervention evaluation, history of clinical research
MeSH terms
Gold, Humans, Terminology as Topic, Reference Standards, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic

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