Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 763

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 access
Gigerenzer, Gerd, Edwards, Adrian·2003·BMJ

Abstract

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1136/bmj.327.7417.741

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

Cited by

See all 763

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.