The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Measuring quality of life
Open accessAbstract
SUMMARY: Flow diversion to treat cerebral aneurysms has revolutionized neurointerventional surgery. Because the addition of coils potentially increases the time and complexity of endovascular procedures, we sought to determine whether adjunctive coil use is associated with an increase in complications. Patients in the International Retrospective Study of Pipeline Embolization Device registry were divided into those treated with the Pipeline Embolization Device alone (n = 689 patients; n = 797 aneurysms; mean aneurysm size, 10.3 ± 7.6 mm) versus those treated with the Pipeline Embolization Device and concurrent coil embolization (n = 104 patients; n = 109 aneurysms; mean aneurysm size, 13.6 ± 7.8 mm). Patient demographics and aneurysm characteristics were examined. Rates of neurologic morbidity and mortality were compared between groups. The Pipeline Embolization Device with versus without coiling required a significantly longer procedure time (135.8 ± 63.9 versus 96.7 ± 46.2 min; P < .0001) and resulted in higher neurological morbidity (12.5% versus 7.8%; P = .13). These data suggest that either strategy represents an acceptable risk profile in the treatment of complex cerebral aneurysms and warrants further investigation.
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
Coefficient Alpha and the Internal Structure of Tests
Cronbach, L. J. (1951) · Psychometrika · doi:10.1007/bf02310555 · Cited by 43,931
Achenbach, T. M., McConaughy, S. H., & Howell, C. T. (1987) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.101.2.213 · Cited by 5,436
Measuring Functioning and Well-Being: The Medical Outcomes Study Approach
Stewart, A., & Ware, J. (1992) · doi:10.7249/cb361 · Cited by 2,689
Responsiveness and validity in health status measurement: a clarification
Guyatt, G. H., Deyo, R. A., Charlson, M., Levine, M. N., & Mitchell, A. (1989) · Journal of Clinical Epidemiology · doi:10.1016/0895-4356(89)90128-5 · Cited by 480
Cited by
Evaluating patient-based outcome measures for use in clinical trials.
Fitzpatrick, Davey, Buxton, & Jones (1998) · Health Technology Assessment · doi:10.3310/hta2140 · Cited by 1,715
Hawthorne, G., Richardson, J., & Osborne, R. (1999) · Quality of Life Research · doi:10.1023/a:1008815005736 · Cited by 786
Valderas, J. M., Kotzeva, A., Espallargues, M., Guyatt, G., Ferrans, C. E., Halyard, M. Y., Revicki, D. A., Symonds, T., Parada, A., & Alonso, J. (2008) · Quality of Life Research · doi:10.1007/s11136-007-9295-0 · Cited by 775
Older Adults' Views of “Successful Aging”—How Do They Compare with Researchers' Definitions?
Phelan, E. A., Anderson, L. A., Lacroix, A. Z., & Larson, E. B. (2004) · Journal of the American Geriatrics Society · doi:10.1111/j.1532-5415.2004.52056.x · Cited by 582
Higginson, I. J., Finlay, I. G., Goodwin, D. M., Hood, K., Edwards, A. G. K., Cook, A., Douglas, H.-R., & Normand, C. E. (2003) · Journal of Pain and Symptom Management · doi:10.1016/s0885-3924(02)00599-7 · Cited by 503
Metadata
- Authors
- Jenney, M. E. M., & Campbell, S.
- Venue
- Archives of Disease in Childhood
- Publisher
- BMJ
- Published
- 1997-10-01
- Volume
- 77
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 347-350
- ISSN
- 0003-9888 (ISSN-L)
- 1468-2044
- OpenAlex
- W2106613075
- Cited by
- 742
- References
- 4
- FWCI
- 8.21
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
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: Measuring quality of life. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1136/adc.77.4.347
- The paper
- Jenney, M. E. M., & Campbell, S. (1997). Measuring quality of life. Archives of Disease in Childhood. https://doi.org/10.1136/adc.77.4.347
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.
