Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 482

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 11 of the 11 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Tips for learners of evidence-based medicine: 3. Measures of observer variability (kappa statistic)

Open access
McGinn, T.·2004·Canadian Medical Association Journal

Abstract

Imagine that you're a busy family physician and that you've found a rare free moment to scan the recent literature. Reviewing your preferred digest of abstracts, you notice a study comparing emergency physicians' interpretation of chest radiographs with radiologists' interpretations.[1][1] The

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 · 10.1503/cmaj.1031981

Cites

11 of 11 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

Cites

Show all 11 references

Cited by

See all 482

Metadata

Authors
McGinn, T.
Venue
Canadian Medical Association Journal
Published
2004-11-23
Volume
171
Issue
11
Pages
1369-1373
ISSN
  • 0820-3946 (ISSN-L)
  • 1488-2329
OpenAlex
W2153928704
Cited by
482
References
11
FWCI
18.33
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
gold

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: Tips for learners of evidence-based medicine: 3. Measures of observer variability (kappa statistic). https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1503/cmaj.1031981
The paper
McGinn, T. (2004). Tips for learners of evidence-based medicine: 3. Measures of observer variability (kappa statistic). Canadian Medical Association Journal. https://doi.org/10.1503/cmaj.1031981

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.