The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
An evidence based approach to individualising treatment
Open accessAbstract
To which groups of patients can the results of clinical trials be applied? This question is often inappropriately answered by reference to the trial entry criteria. Instead, the benefit and harm (adverse events, discomfort of treatment, etc) of treatment could be assessed separately for individual patients. Patients at greatest risk of a disease will have the greatest net benefit as benefit to patients usually increases with risk while harm remains comparatively fixed. To assess net benefit, the relative risks should come from (a meta-analysis of) randomised trials; the risk in individual patients should come from multivariate risk equations derived from cohort studies. However, before making firm conclusions, the assumptions of fixed adverse effects and constant reduction in relative risk need to be checked.
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
An Assessment of Clinically Useful Measures of the Consequences of Treatment
Laupacis, A., Sackett, D. L., & Roberts, R. S. (1988) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejm198806303182605 · Cited by 1,681
QUANTITATIVE METHODS IN THE REVIEW OF EPIDEMIOLOGIC LITERATURE1
GREENLAND, S. (1987) · Epidemiologic Reviews · doi:10.1093/oxfordjournals.epirev.a036298 · Cited by 1,644
Demonstration of deductive meta-analysis: ethanol intake and risk of myocardial infarction
Maclure, M. (1993) · Epidemiologic Reviews · doi:10.1093/oxfordjournals.epirev.a036124 · Cited by 397
Who benefits from medical interventions?
Smith, G. D., & Egger, M. (1994) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.308.6921.72 · Cited by 128
Cited by
Hao (2015) · doi:10.1002/14651858 · Cited by 11,321
2021 ESC Guidelines on cardiovascular disease prevention in clinical practice
Visseren, F. L. J., Mach, F., Smulders, Y. M., Carballo, D., Koskinas, K. C., Bäck, M., Benetos, A., Biffi, A., Boavida, J.-M., Capodanno, D., et al. (2021) · European Heart Journal · doi:10.1093/eurheartj/ehab484 · Cited by 6,485
Investigating and dealing with publication and other biases in meta-analysis
Sterne, J. A. C., Egger, M., & Smith, G. D. (2001) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.323.7304.101 · Cited by 2,225
Corticosteroids for acute bacterial meningitis
Brouwer, M. C., McIntyre, P., Prasad, K., & van de Beek, D. (2015) · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1002/14651858.cd004405.pub5 · Cited by 809
Gage, B. F., van Walraven, C., Pearce, L., Hart, R. G., Koudstaal, P. J., Boode, B. S. P., & Petersen, P. (2004) · Circulation · doi:10.1161/01.cir.0000145172.55640.93 · Cited by 749
Metadata
- Authors
- Glasziou, P. P., & Irwig, L. M.
- Venue
- BMJ
- Publisher
- BMJ
- Published
- 1995-11-18
- Volume
- 311
- Issue
- 7016
- Pages
- 1356-1359
- ISSN
- 0007-1447 (ISSN-L)
- 0959-8138
- 1468-5833
- OpenAlex
- W2007689247
- Cited by
- 391
- References
- 4
- FWCI
- 19.04
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
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: An evidence based approach to individualising treatment. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1136/bmj.311.7016.1356
- The paper
- Glasziou, P. P., & Irwig, L. M. (1995). An evidence based approach to individualising treatment. BMJ. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.311.7016.1356
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.