The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Prospective Randomized Open Blinded End-point (PROBE) Study. A novel design for intervention trials
Abstract
A novel design for intervention studies is presented, the so called PROBE study (Prospective Randomized Open, Blinded End-point). This design is compared to the classical double-blind design. Among the advantages of the PROBE design are lower cost and greater similarity to standard clinical practice, which should make the results more easily applicable in routine medical care. Since end-points are evaluated by a blinded end-point committee it is obvious that there should be no difference between the two types of trials in this regard.
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
Cited by
Hansson, L., Zanchetti, A., Carruthers, S. G., Dahlöf, B., Elmfeldt, D., Julius, S., Ménard, J., Rahn, K. H., Wedel, H., & Westerling, S. (1998) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(98)04311-6 · Cited by 5,728
Self-citationDahlöf, B., Sever, P. S., Poulter, N. R., Wedel, H., Beevers, D. G., Caulfield, M., Collins, R., Kjeldsen, S. E., Kristinsson, A., McInnes, G. T., et al. (2005) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(05)67185-1 · Cited by 2,909
Self-citationYokoyama, M., Origasa, H., Matsuzaki, M., Matsuzawa, Y., Saito, Y., Ishikawa, Y., Oikawa, S., Sasaki, J., Hishida, H., Itakura, H., et al. (2007) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(07)60527-3 · Cited by 2,516
The CAFE Investigators, CAFE Steering Committee and Writing Committee, Williams, B., Lacy, P. S., Thom, S. M., Cruickshank, K., Stanton, A., Collier, D., Hughes, A. D., Thurston, H., et al. (2006) · Circulation · doi:10.1161/circulationaha.105.595496 · Cited by 1,645
Pedersen, T. R. (2005) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.294.19.2437 · Cited by 1,548
Metadata
- Authors
- Hansson, L., Hedner, T., & Dahlöf, B.
- Venue
- Blood Pressure
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 1992-01
- Volume
- 1
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 113-119
- ISSN
- 0803-7051 (ISSN-L)
- 1651-1999
- OpenAlex
- W2165141146
- Cited by
- 577
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 5.97
- 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
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.
