Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 382

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

The New Tuberculosis

Snider, Dixie E., Roper, William L.·1992·New England Journal of Medicine

Abstract

Events during the past decade have dramatically changed the nature and magnitude of the problem of tuberculosis. Much of what many physicians learned in training about this disease is no longer true. In many respects, tuberculosis has become a new entity.The strategy used to control tuberculosis in the United States has been based on a two-pronged approach: identifying and treating persons with active disease (to cure them and prevent further transmission) and identifying and treating those with subclinical infection (to prevent the development of the disease). Until recently, this strategy generally was successful. The incidence of tuberculosis declined steadily, . . .

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 · 10.1056/nejm199203053261011

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 382

Metadata

Authors
Snider, D. E., & Roper, W. L.
Venue
New England Journal of Medicine
Published
1992-03-05
Volume
326
Issue
10
Pages
703-705
ISSN
  • 0028-4793 (ISSN-L)
  • 1533-4406
OpenAlex
W2058212725
Cited by
382
References
0
FWCI
42.65
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: The New Tuberculosis. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1056/nejm199203053261011
The paper
Snider, D. E., & Roper, W. L. (1992). The New Tuberculosis. New England Journal of Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1056/nejm199203053261011

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.