Cited by 14Primary Care and Health OutcomesHealth Sciences Research and EducationHealth Policy Implementation Science

Measuring the Impact of Practice-based Research Networks (PBRNs)

Open access
Werner, J. J.·2012·The Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine

Abstract

Practice-based research networks (PBRNs) continue their upward trajectory in scope and numbers, now engaging community practices that reach approximately 15% of the US population. In this issue, Peterson et al,[1][1] characterizes US PBRNs based on data from the 2011 Agency for Healthcare Research

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 · 10.3122/jabfm.2012.05.120176

Cites

17 of 17 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?

  • Reports of PBRN performance metrics are rare for both medical and dental PBRNs, and have primarily focused on the number of studies completed and the number of participants involved.

    “Indeed, reports of PBRN performance metrics are rare for both medical and dental PBRNs, and have primarily focused on the number of studies completed and the number of participants involved [6,14,15].”

    From Structure, function, and productivity from the National Dental Practice-Based Research Network. (2022) · cites this paper as [14]

    In “Measuring the Impact of Practice-based Research Networks (PBRNs)” (page unavailable), Werner reports counts of completed studies and network members and calls for more comprehensive PBRN evaluation. The paper does not establish that performance-metric reports are rare for both medical and dental PBRNs, or report counts of study participants; network members are not necessarily study participants. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

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
Werner, J. J.
Affiliations
Case Western Reserve University (US)
Corresponding author
Werner, J. J.
Venue
The Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine
Published
2012-09-01
Volume
25
Issue
5
Pages
557-559
ISSN
  • 1557-2625 (ISSN-L)
  • 1558-7118
OpenAlex
W2138434242
Cited by
14
References
17
Citations by year
2025: 2 · 2022: 2 · 2020: 1 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 1 · 2015: 2 · 2014: 1 · 2013: 3
FWCI
3.41
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • The Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health (UL1TR000439)
  • National Cancer Institute (P30CA043703)
  • National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Primary Care and Health Outcomes
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Sciences Research and Education
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Policy Implementation Science
Keywords
practice-based research networks, community practice, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, family medicine research
MeSH terms
Health Services Research, Humans, Primary Health Care, Community Networks

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