The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Anecdotes that provide definitive evidence
Open accessAbstract
When a criminal is caught in the act, other evidence is unnecessary. Should the same be true for adverse drug reactions?
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
Cited by
Evaluation and stages of surgical innovations
Barkun, J. S., Aronson, J. K., Feldman, L. S., Maddern, G. J., & Strasberg, S. M. (2009) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(09)61083-7 · Cited by 573
Self-citationDermoscopy in General Dermatology: A Practical Overview
Errichetti, E., & Stinco, G. (2016) · Dermatology and Therapy · doi:10.1007/s13555-016-0141-6 · Cited by 401
Sacristán, J. A. (2013) · BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making · doi:10.1186/1472-6947-13-6 · Cited by 269
Decision support methods for the detection of adverse events in post-marketing data
Hauben, M., & Bate, A. (2009) · Drug Discovery Today · doi:10.1016/j.drudis.2008.12.012 · Cited by 163
Self-citationMazzanti, G., Moro, P. A., Raschi, E., Da Cas, R., & Menniti‐Ippolito, F. (2017) · British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology · doi:10.1111/bcp.13171 · Cited by 81
Metadata
- Authors
- Aronson, J. K., & Hauben, M.
- Venue
- BMJ
- Publisher
- BMJ
- Published
- 2006-12-14
- Volume
- 333
- Issue
- 7581
- Pages
- 1267-1269
- ISSN
- 0007-1447 (ISSN-L)
- 0959-8138
- 1468-5833
- OpenAlex
- W1977356526
- Cited by
- 184
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 13.34
- 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: Anecdotes that provide definitive evidence. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1136/bmj.39036.666389.94
- The paper
- Aronson, J. K., & Hauben, M. (2006). Anecdotes that provide definitive evidence. BMJ. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.39036.666389.94
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.
