Cited by 6Telemedicine and Telehealth ImplementationChronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) ResearchMobile Health and mHealth Applications

Meta-analysis on COPD: Comment on ‘Home telehealth for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis. by J Polisena et al.’

McLean, Susannah C, McKinstry, Brian·2012·Journal of Telemedicine and Telecare

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1258/jtt.2012.110005

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
McLean, S. C., & McKinstry, B.
Affiliations
University of Edinburgh (GB)
Corresponding author
McKinstry, Brian
Venue
Journal of Telemedicine and Telecare
Published
2012-05-29
Volume
18
Issue
4
Pages
242-242
ISSN
  • 1357-633X (ISSN-L)
  • 1758-1109
OpenAlex
W2015117484
Cited by
6
References
3
Citations by year
2017: 2 · 2016: 2 · 2013: 1 · 2012: 1
FWCI
0.10
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Telemedicine and Telecare (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Telemedicine and Telehealth Implementation
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pulmonary and Respiratory Medicine › Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) Research
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Mobile Health and mHealth Applications
Keywords
chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, home telehealth, remote patient monitoring
MeSH terms
Female, Home Care Services, Humans, Male, Telemedicine, Pulmonary Disease, Chronic Obstructive

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