The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Simple tools for understanding risks: from innumeracy to insight
Open accessAbstract
Objective To investigate the effect of Fluticasone Propionate/Salmeterol on exercise endurance and pulmonary function in patients with moderate-severe COPD. Methods 53 patients with moderate-severe COPD were randomly divided to two groups. Treatment group inhaled dry powder SFC(salmeterol 50ug, fluticasone Propionate 250ug) twice daily for 24 weeks. Control group got symptomatic treatment for 24 weeks. Predose and postdose pulmonary and cycle cardiopulmonary exercise test evaluations were compared. Results There were no difference in predose pulmonary and CPET between two groups. In treatment group, With SFC treatment for 24weeks, FVC, FEV1, IC were significient increased; ITGV,RV and TLV were significient decreased(p<0.05); Peak WR increased, but had no statisticly difference. Peak VO2, peak VO2/Kg, peak VCO2, peak O2 pulse, peak VE were significient increased(p<0.05); VD/VT and lowest VE/VCO2 were decreased from (p<0.05); postdose improvement in IC was significantly correlated with the increase in Peak VO2, Peak VO2/Kg, Peak VE, VD/VT and Lowest VE/VCO2,but not with FEV1. Predose and postdose pulmonary and CPET were no changes in control group. Conclusion Exercise tolerance in patients with moderate-severe COPD were distinguished impaired. After long term SFC treatment, lung hyperinflation at rest and exercise were decreased, exercise endurance were increased when compared with symptomatic treatment. CPET is useful in COPD patients as it allows objective measurement of the exercise tolerance and evaluation of the response to therapeutic intervention.
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
Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision under Risk
Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979) · Econometrica · doi:10.2307/1914185 · Cited by 48,524
Cosmides, L. (1996) · Cognition · doi:10.1016/0010-0277(95)00664-8 · Cited by 1,293
Cited by
Helping Doctors and Patients Make Sense of Health Statistics
Gigerenzer, G., Gaissmaier, W., Kurz-Milcke, E., Schwartz, L. M., & Woloshin, S. (2007) · Psychological Science in the Public Interest · doi:10.1111/j.1539-6053.2008.00033.x · Cited by 1,336
Self-citationElmore, J. G. (2005) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.293.10.1245 · Cited by 1,075
GRADE guidelines: 12. Preparing Summary of Findings tables—binary outcomes
Guyatt, G. H., Oxman, A. D., Santesso, N., Helfand, M., Vist, G., Kunz, R., Brozek, J., Norris, S., Meerpohl, J., Djulbegovic, B., et al. (2013) · Journal of Clinical Epidemiology · doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2012.01.012 · Cited by 836
Dew, N., Read, S., Sarasvathy, S. D., & Wiltbank, R. (2009) · Journal of Business Venturing · doi:10.1016/j.jbusvent.2008.02.002 · Cited by 829
Lipkus, I. M. (2007) · Medical Decision Making · doi:10.1177/0272989x07307271 · Cited by 771
Metadata
- Authors
- Gigerenzer, G., & Edwards, A.
- Venue
- BMJ
- Publisher
- BMJ
- Published
- 2003-09-25
- Volume
- 327
- Issue
- 7417
- Pages
- 741-744
- ISSN
- 0007-1447 (ISSN-L)
- 0959-8138
- 1468-5833
- OpenAlex
- W2162187829
- Cited by
- 763
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 21.65
- 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: Simple tools for understanding risks: from innumeracy to insight. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1136/bmj.327.7417.741
- The paper
- Gigerenzer, G., & Edwards, A. (2003). Simple tools for understanding risks: from innumeracy to insight. BMJ. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.327.7417.741
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.