The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Consensus Development Conference: A Cross-Cultural Study
Abstract
A pair of consensus development conferences held in the United States and in Sweden presented an unusual opportunity for a cross-cultural study of technology transfer The two conferences were based on the same topic and the same set ofprocedures, providing a chance to test the replicability of the concept of the consensus development conference in different cultures with different health care systems. The purpose of the study was to compare the two experiences, addressing the following questions (I) Can the consensus development process operate across cultural differences and still yield similar results ? (2) Do differences in the health payment system effect the consensus development process ? The study concluded that the consensus development conference is an effective technology transfer procedure both in the United States and in Sweden. The process was effective regardless of differences in language, culture, and health care delivery systems Conclusions reached by consensus development panels regarding the safety and efficacy of the technology were similar Inclusion of issues of need and cost at the Swedish conference expanded the agenda beyond that of the U S conference, however the consensus development process remained the same
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
Mixing Qualitative and Quantitative Methods: Triangulation in Action.
Jick, T. D. (1979) · Administrative Science Quarterly · doi:10.2307/2392366 · Cited by 7,103
Cited by
for the IOF-IFCC Bone Marker Standards Working Group, Vasikaran, S., Eastell, R., Bruyère, O., Foldes, A. J., Garnero, P., Griesmacher, A., McClung, M., Morris, H. A., Silverman, S., et al. (2011) · Osteoporosis International · doi:10.1007/s00198-010-1501-1 · Cited by 1,212
Insulin Resistance in Morbid Obesity
Greco, A. V., Mingrone, G., Giancaterini, A., Manco, M., Morroni, M., Cinti, S., Granzotto, M., Vettor, R., Camastra, S., & Ferrannini, E. (2002) · Diabetes · doi:10.2337/diabetes.51.1.144 · Cited by 442
Optimal search strategies for retrieving systematic reviews from Medline: analytical survey
Montori, V. M., Wilczynski, N. L., Morgan, D., & Haynes, R. B. (2005) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.38336.804167.47 · Cited by 422
Horvath, K., Jeitler, K., Berghold, A., Ebrahim, S. H., Gratzer, T. W., Plank, J., Kaiser, T., Pieber, T. R., & Siebenhofer, A. (2007) · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1002/14651858.cd005613.pub3 · Cited by 366
Sugerman, H. J., Brewer, W. H., Shiffman, M. L., Brolin, R. E., Fobi, M. A. L., Linner, J. H., MacDonald, K. G., MacGregor, A. M., Martin, L. F., Oram-Smith, J. C., et al. (1995) · The American Journal of Surgery · doi:10.1016/s0002-9610(99)80115-9 · Cited by 336
Metadata
- Authors
- Larsen, J. K., & Rogers, E. M.
- Venue
- Knowledge
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 1984-06
- Volume
- 5
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 537-548
- ISSN
- 0164-0259 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2016962797
- Cited by
- 751
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 17.87
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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: Consensus Development Conference: A Cross-Cultural Study. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1177/107554708400500406
- The paper
- Larsen, J. K., & Rogers, E. M. (1984). Consensus Development Conference: A Cross-Cultural Study. Knowledge. https://doi.org/10.1177/107554708400500406
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.
