Cited by 416Advanced Causal Inference TechniquesPhilosophy and History of ScienceMethodologies in Health Research and Practice

Observational research, randomised trials, and two views of medical science

Open access
Vandenbroucke, Jan P·2008·PLoS Medicine

Abstract

Two views exist of medical science, says the author, one emphasizing discovery and explanation, the other emphasizing evaluation of interventions.

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 · 10.1371/journal.pmed.0050067

Cites

66 of 66 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

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?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Vandenbroucke, J. P.
Affiliations
Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences (NL)
Corresponding author
Vandenbroucke, Jan P
Venue
PLoS Medicine
Published
2008-03-11
Volume
5
Issue
3
Pages
e67
ISSN
  • 1549-1277 (ISSN-L)
  • 1549-1676
OpenAlex
W2090226269
Cited by
416
References
66
Citations by year
2026: 15 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 15 · 2023: 32 · 2022: 22 · 2021: 23 · 2020: 23 · 2019: 25 · 2018: 14 · 2017: 14 · 2016: 17 · 2015: 26 · 2014: 20 · 2013: 36 · 2012: 31
FWCI
30.62
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • PLoS Medicine (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • Figshare (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Advanced Causal Inference Techniques
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › History and Philosophy of Science › Philosophy and History of Science
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Methodologies in Health Research and Practice
Keywords
observational studies, randomised trials, medical sciences, intervention evaluation, philosophy of medicine
MeSH terms
Contraceptives, Oral, Evaluation Studies as Topic, Factor V, Female, Follow-Up Studies, Humans, Prospective Studies, Retrospective Studies, Case-Control Studies, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic, Biomedical Research, Venous Thromboembolism

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