Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 762

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

A Method for the Detailed Assessment of the Appropriateness of Medical Technologies

Brook, Robert H., Chassin, Mark R., Fink, Arlene, Solomon, David H., Kosecoff, Jacqueline, Park, R. E.·1986·International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care

Abstract

The standard way to assess medical technologies is to conduct a randomized clinical trial. Patients are randomly assigned to groups receiving alternative treatments, and outcomes are monitored over a long period of time. For example, some victims of left main coronary artery disease may undergo coronary artery bypass surgery, and others may receive medical treatment with nitroglycerine and beta blockers. Comparison of five-year mortality and morbidity in the two groups helps to determine the relative appropriateness of the two procedures. In addition, information about quality of life and cost can also be collected and compared.

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 · 10.1017/s0266462300002774

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.

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 762

Metadata

Authors
Brook, R. H., Chassin, M. R., Fink, A., Solomon, D. H., Kosecoff, J., & Park, R. E.
Venue
International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care
Published
1986-01
Volume
2
Issue
1
Pages
53-63
ISSN
  • 0266-4623 (ISSN-L)
  • 1471-6348
OpenAlex
W2089889400
Cited by
762
References
0
FWCI
1.51
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: A Method for the Detailed Assessment of the Appropriateness of Medical Technologies. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1017/s0266462300002774
The paper
Brook, R. H., Chassin, M. R., Fink, A., Solomon, D. H., Kosecoff, J., & Park, R. E. (1986). A Method for the Detailed Assessment of the Appropriateness of Medical Technologies. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0266462300002774

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.