Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 478

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 32 of the 32 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

The Magic of Randomization versus the Myth of Real-World Evidence

Collins, Rory, Bowman, Louise, Landray, Martin, Peto, Richard·2020·New England Journal of Medicine
DOI 10.1056/nejmsb1901642
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Nonrandomized observational analyses have been promoted as alternatives to randomized clinical trials. However, randomization ensures balance between groups, whereas nonrandomized studies are often biased by between-group differences. Efforts to reduce the cost and complexity of clinical trials are preferable to relying on observational studies.

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/nejmsb1901642

Cites

32 of 32 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 32 references

Cited by

See all 478

Metadata

Authors
Collins, R., Bowman, L., Landray, M., & Peto, R.
Venue
New England Journal of Medicine
Publisher
Massachusetts Medical Society
Published
2020-02-13
Volume
382
Issue
7
Pages
674-678
ISSN
  • 0028-4793 (ISSN-L)
  • 1533-4406
DOI
10.1056/nejmsb1901642
OpenAlex
W3006019089
Cited by
478
References
32
FWCI
53.03
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 Magic of Randomization versus the Myth of Real-World Evidence. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1056/nejmsb1901642
The paper
Collins, R., Bowman, L., Landray, M., & Peto, R. (2020). The Magic of Randomization versus the Myth of Real-World Evidence. New England Journal of Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1056/nejmsb1901642

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.