Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 2,051

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 19 of the 19 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Consensus development methods, and their use in clinical guideline development.

Open access
Murphy, Black, Lamping, McKee, Sanderson, Askham, Marteau·1998·Health Technology Assessment

Abstract

NHS R&D HTA ProgrammeT he overall aim of the NHS R&D Health Technology Assessment (HTA) programme is to ensure that high-quality research information on the costs, effectiveness and broader impact of health technologies is produced in the most efficient way for those who use, manage and work in the NHS.Research is undertaken in those areas where the evidence will lead to the greatest benefits to patients, either through improved patient outcomes or the most efficient use of NHS resources.The Standing Group on Health Technology advises on national priorities for health technology assessment.Six advisory panels assist the Standing Group in identifying and prioritising projects.These priorities are then considered by the HTA Commissioning Board supported by the National Coordinating Centre for HTA (NCCHTA).This report is one of a series covering acute care, diagnostics and imaging, methodology, pharmaceuticals, population screening, and primary and community care.It was identified as a priority by the Methodology Panel.The views expressed in this publication are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the Standing Group, the Commissioning Board, the Panel members or the Department of Health.The editors wish to emphasise that funding and publication of this research by the NHS should not be taken as implicit support for the recommendations for policy contained herein.In particular, policy options in the area of screening will, in England, be considered by the National Screening Committee.This Committee, chaired by the Chief Medical Officer, will take into account the views expressed here, further available evidence and other relevant considerations.

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 · 10.3310/hta2030

Cites

19 of 19 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 19 references

Cited by

See all 2,051

Metadata

Authors
Murphy, Black, Lamping, McKee, Sanderson, Askham, & Marteau
Venue
Health Technology Assessment
Published
1998
Volume
2
Issue
3
Pages
i-iv, 1
ISSN
  • 1366-5278 (ISSN-L)
  • 2046-4924
OpenAlex
W3139553455
Cited by
2,051
References
19
FWCI
14.44
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze
Funders
Health Technology Assessment Programme (93/53/01)

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: Consensus development methods, and their use in clinical guideline development. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.3310/hta2030
The paper
Murphy, Black, Lamping, McKee, Sanderson, Askham, & Marteau. (1998). Consensus development methods, and their use in clinical guideline development. Health Technology Assessment. https://doi.org/10.3310/hta2030

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.