Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 510

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Understanding and Responding to Adverse Events

Vincent, Charles·2003·New England Journal of Medicine

Abstract

This article describes a method of investigating and learning from adverse events. Careful investigation and systems analysis can identify the factors that set the stage for a medical error. The author argues that the process of understanding adverse events leads to improvements in care and reductions in errors and that insensitive and inadequate handling of an incident can result in additional harm to patients and families. He outlines practical strategies to minimize the trauma resulting from adverse events.

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/nejmhpr020760

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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

Cites

Show all 3 references

Cited by

See all 510

Metadata

Authors
Vincent, C.
Venue
New England Journal of Medicine
Published
2003-03-13
Volume
348
Issue
11
Pages
1051-1056
ISSN
  • 0028-4793 (ISSN-L)
  • 1533-4406
OpenAlex
W1994463558
Cited by
510
References
3
FWCI
45.78
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: Understanding and Responding to Adverse Events. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1056/nejmhpr020760
The paper
Vincent, C. (2003). Understanding and Responding to Adverse Events. New England Journal of Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1056/nejmhpr020760

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.