The DOI matches its Crossref record; 14 of the 14 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Assessing the Quality of Randomized Trials
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
Statistical Methods for Rates and Proportions
Fleiss, J. L., Levin, B., & Paik, M. C. (2003) · Wiley Series in Probability and Statistics · doi:10.1002/0471445428 · Cited by 18,646
Assessing the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials: Is blinding necessary?
Jadad, A. R., Moore, R. A., Carroll, D., Jenkinson, C., Reynolds, D. J. M., Gavaghan, D. J., & McQuay, H. J. (1996) · Controlled Clinical Trials · doi:10.1016/0197-2456(95)00134-4 · Cited by 17,582
Moher, D., Jadad, A. R., Nichol, G., Penman, M., Tugwell, P., & Walsh, S. (1995) · Controlled Clinical Trials · doi:10.1016/0197-2456(94)00031-w · Cited by 1,308
Meta-Analyses of Randomized Controlled Trials
Sacks, H. S., Berrier, J., Reitman, D., Ancona-Berk, V. A., & Chalmers, T. C. (1987) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejm198702193160806 · Cited by 1,250
The measurement of interrater agreement
Fleiss, J. (1981) · Medical Entomology and Zoology · Cited by 864
Incorporating variations in the quality of individual randomized trials into meta-analysis
Detsky, A. S., Naylor, C. D., O'Rourke, K., McGeer, A. J., & L'Abbé, K. A. (1992) · Journal of Clinical Epidemiology · doi:10.1016/0895-4356(92)90085-2 · Cited by 640
Assessing the Quality of Randomized Controlled Trials:Current Issues and Future Directions
Moher, D., Jadad, A. R., & Tugwell, P. (1996) · International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care · doi:10.1017/s0266462300009570 · Cited by 436
Laupacis, A., & Fergusson, D. (1997) · Anesthesia & Analgesia · doi:10.1097/00000539-199712000-00014 · Cited by 389
Self-citationThe Importance of Quality of Primary Studies in Producing Unbiased Systematic Reviews
Khan, K. S. (1996) · Archives of Internal Medicine · doi:10.1001/archinte.156.6.661 · Cited by 328
Bias in meta-analytic research
Felson, D. T. (1992) · Journal of Clinical Epidemiology · doi:10.1016/0895-4356(92)90072-u · Cited by 231
Cited by
Reliability of the PEDro Scale for Rating Quality of Randomized Controlled Trials
Maher, C. G., Sherrington, C., Herbert, R. D., Moseley, A. M., & Elkins, M. (2003) · Physical Therapy · doi:10.1093/ptj/83.8.713 · Cited by 4,808
Evaluating non-randomised intervention studies
Deeks, J., Dinnes, J., D'Amico, R., Sowden, A., Sakarovitch, C., Song, F., Petticrew, M., & Altman, D. (2003) · Health Technology Assessment · doi:10.3310/hta7270 · Cited by 2,907
Scales to Assess the Quality of Randomized Controlled Trials: A Systematic Review
Olivo, S. A., Macedo, L. G., Gadotti, I. C., Fuentes, J., Stanton, T., & Magee, D. J. (2008) · Physical Therapy · doi:10.2522/ptj.20070147 · Cited by 829
Balk, E. M. (2002) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.287.22.2973 · Cited by 478
Wu, C. L., Cohen, S. R., Richman, J. M., Rowlingson, A. J., Courpas, G. E., Cheung, K., Lin, E. E., & Liu, S. S. (2005) · Anesthesiology · doi:10.1097/00000542-200511000-00023 · Cited by 462
Metadata
- Authors
- Clark, H. D., Wells, G. A., Huët, C., McAlister, F. A., Salmi, L. R., Fergusson, D., & Laupacis, A.
- Venue
- Controlled Clinical Trials
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 1999-10
- Volume
- 20
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 448-452
- ISSN
- 0197-2456 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2162732991
- Cited by
- 648
- References
- 14
- FWCI
- 16.73
- 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: Assessing the Quality of Randomized Trials. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/s0197-2456(99)00026-4
- The paper
- Clark, H. D., Wells, G. A., Huët, C., McAlister, F. A., Salmi, L. R., Fergusson, D., & Laupacis, A. (1999). Assessing the Quality of Randomized Trials. Controlled Clinical Trials. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0197-2456(99)00026-4
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.
