Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 754

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 7 of the 7 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

How to read a paper: Papers that go beyond numbers (qualitative research)

Open access
Greenhalgh, Trisha, Taylor, Rod·1997·BMJ

Abstract

Education and debateShould we screen for gestational diabetes?R J Jarrett wrote to us arguing that gestational diabetes was a muddled concept that provided uncertain benefits for mother and infant.We invited Richard Beard and colleagues to put the other side of the argument and make the case for screening all pregnant women for gestational diabetes

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.315.7110.740

Cites

7 of 7 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 7 references

Cited by

See all 754

Metadata

Authors
Greenhalgh, T., & Taylor, R.
Venue
BMJ
Publisher
BMJ
Published
1997-09-20
Volume
315
Issue
7110
Pages
740-743
ISSN
  • 1756-1833 (ISSN-L)
  • 0959-8138
OpenAlex
W2053738891
Cited by
754
References
7
FWCI
72.96
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: How to read a paper: Papers that go beyond numbers (qualitative research). https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1136/bmj.315.7110.740
The paper
Greenhalgh, T., & Taylor, R. (1997). How to read a paper: Papers that go beyond numbers (qualitative research). BMJ. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.315.7110.740

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.