Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 231

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Effectiveness of health checks conducted by nurses in primary care: results of the OXCHECK study after one year

Muir, J, Mant, D, Jones, L, Yudkin, P·1994·BMJ

Abstract

Objective : To assess the effectiveness of health checks by nurses in reducing risk factors for cardiovascular disease in patients from general practice. Design : Randomised controlled trial. Setting : Five urban general practices in Bedfordshire. Subjects : 2136 patients receiving an initial health check in 1989-91 and scheduled to be re-examined one year later in 1990-2 (intervention group); 3988 patients receiving an initial health check in 1990-2 (control group). All patients were aged 35-64 years at recruitment in 1989. Main outcome measures : Serum total cholesterol concentration, blood pressure, body mass index, confirmed smoking cessation. Results : Mean serum total cholesterol was 2.3% lower in the intervention group than in the controls (difference 0.14 mmol/l (95% confidence interval 0.08 to 0.20)); the difference was greater in women (3.2%, P<0.0001) than men (1.0%, P=0.18). There was no significant difference in smoking prevalence, quit rates, or body mass index. Systolic and diastolic blood pressure were 2.5% and 2.4% lower respectively in the intervention group. The proportion of patients with diastolic blood pressure >=100 mm Hg was 2.6% (55/2131) in the intervention group and 3.4% (137/3987) in the controls (difference 0.9% (0.0 to 1.7); the proportion with total cholesterol concentration >=8 mmol/l 4.8% (100/2068) and 7.6% (295/3905) (difference 2.7% (1.5 to 4.0)); and that with body mass index >=30 12.4% (264/2125) and 14.0% (559/3984) (difference 1.6% (-0.2 to 3.4)). Conclusion : General health checks by nurses are ineffective in helping smokers to stop smoking, but they help patients to modify their diet and total cholesterol concentration. The public health importance of this dietary change depends on whether it is sustained.

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.308.6924.308

Cites

2 of 2 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 2 references

Cited by

See all 231

Metadata

Authors
Muir, J., Mant, D., Jones, L., & Yudkin, P.
Venue
BMJ
Publisher
BMJ
Published
1994-01-29
Volume
308
Issue
6924
Pages
308-312
ISSN
  • 0007-1447 (ISSN-L)
  • 0959-8138
  • 1468-5833
OpenAlex
W2074572686
Cited by
231
References
2
FWCI
38.46
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: Effectiveness of health checks conducted by nurses in primary care: results of the OXCHECK study after one year. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1136/bmj.308.6924.308
The paper
Muir, J., Mant, D., Jones, L., & Yudkin, P. (1994). Effectiveness of health checks conducted by nurses in primary care: results of the OXCHECK study after one year. BMJ. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.308.6924.308

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.