Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 258

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Drug Defaulting in a General Practice

Open access
Porter, A. M. W.·1969·BMJ

Abstract

Different groups of patients in a general practice have been under close observation by defined methods to assess the extent of their adherence to drug schedules. Patients taking antibiotics, admitted to a short drug trial and prescribed long-term treatments, proved in most cases to be compliant. Antenatal patients taking a once-daily dosage of prophylactic iron were more co-operative than those taking divided dosages. Socially isolated patients and those of low social class were particularly likely to neglect their drugs. It is suggested that the significance and extent of the problem have been largely ignored and that all drug trials undertaken on outpatients should incorporate methods of detecting defaulters.

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 · 10.1136/bmj.1.5638.218

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 258

Metadata

Authors
Porter, A. M. W.
Venue
BMJ
Publisher
BMJ
Published
1969-01-25
Volume
1
Issue
5638
Pages
218-222
ISSN
  • 0007-1447 (ISSN-L)
  • 1468-5833
OpenAlex
W2046572914
Cited by
258
References
0
FWCI
18.40
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: Drug Defaulting in a General Practice. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1136/bmj.1.5638.218
The paper
Porter, A. M. W. (1969). Drug Defaulting in a General Practice. BMJ. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.1.5638.218

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.