Cited by 139Statistical Methods in Clinical TrialsHealth Policy Implementation ScienceMeta-analysis and systematic reviews

Randomised clinical trials in general practice: lessons from a failure.

Open access
Tognoni, G, Alli, C, Avanzini, F, Bettelli, G, Colombo, F, Corso, R, Marchioli, R, Zussino, A·1991·BMJ

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.303.6808.969

Cites

18 of 18 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Recruitment to primary care trials in the United Kingdom is routinely problematic and particularly difficult in trials of mental health.

    “Recruitment to primary care trials in the United Kingdom is routinely problematic and particularly difficult in trials of mental health [41-43].”

    From Development and evaluation of culturally sensitive psychosocial interventions for under-served people in primary care (2014) · cites this paper as [42]

    The study reports low recruitment in a general-practice trial of hypertension, supporting the narrower point that recruitment can be difficult. The Comments identify the setting as Italian general practice; the paper does not establish that recruitment is routinely problematic in the United Kingdom or particularly difficult in mental-health trials. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 19 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. Greer AL. The state of the art versus the state of the science. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 1988;4:5-26.
  2. Voegel JHK. Management of acute myocardial infarction 1991: a prospective. Clin Cardiol 1991;14:5-9.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Tognoni, G., Alli, C., Avanzini, F., Bettelli, G., Colombo, F., Corso, R., Marchioli, R., & Zussino, A.
Affiliations
Mario Negri Institute for Pharmacological Research (IT)
Venue
BMJ
Publisher
BMJ
Published
1991-10-19
Volume
303
Issue
6808
Pages
969-971
ISSN
  • 0007-1447 (ISSN-L)
  • 0959-8138
  • 1468-5833
OpenAlex
W2015919934
Cited by
139
References
19
Citations by year
2025: 1 · 2024: 1 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 3 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 2 · 2014: 5 · 2013: 5 · 2012: 6
FWCI
7.57
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • BMJ (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods in Clinical Trials
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Policy Implementation Science
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
Keywords
randomized controlled trials, general practice, primary care research, clinical trial failure, research methodology
MeSH terms
Aged, Antihypertensive Agents, Attitude of Health Personnel, Clinical Protocols, Family Practice, Humans, Hypertension, Italy, Physician-Patient Relations, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic

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