The DOI matches its Crossref record; 13 of the 13 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Monitoring blood glucose control in diabetes mellitus: a systematic review.
Open accessAbstract
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 Diagnostics and Imaging Panel and funded as project number 96/10/03.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 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.Reviews in Health Technology Assessment are termed 'systematic' when the account of the search, appraisal and synthesis methods (to minimise biases and random errors) would, in theory, permit the replication of the review by others.
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
STATISTICAL METHODS FOR ASSESSING AGREEMENT BETWEEN TWO METHODS OF CLINICAL MEASUREMENT
Martin Bland, J., & Altman, D. (1986) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(86)90837-8 · Cited by 47,965
Operating characteristics of a rank correlation test for publication bias
Begg, C. B., & Mazumdar, M. (1994) · Biometrics · doi:10.2307/2533446 · Cited by 16,955
Downs, S. H., & Black, N. (1998) · Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health · doi:10.1136/jech.52.6.377 · Cited by 8,252
Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement
Bland, J. M., & Altman, D. G. (2010) · International Journal of Nursing Studies · doi:10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2009.10.001 · Cited by 5,220
Moher, D., Cook, D. J., Eastwood, S., Olkin, I., Rennie, D., & Stroup, D. F. (1999) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(99)04149-5 · Cited by 4,826
de Veciana, M., Major, C. A., Morgan, M. A., Asrat, T., Toohey, J. S., Lien, J. M., & Evans, A. T. (1995) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejm199511093331901 · Cited by 666
Goldstein, D. E., Little, R. R., Lorenz, R. A., Malone, J. I., Nathan, D., Peterson, C. M., & Sacks, D. B. (2004) · Diabetes Care · doi:10.2337/diacare.27.7.1761 · Cited by 625
Abraira, C., Colwell, J. A., Nuttall, F. Q., Sawin, C. T., Nagel, N. J., Comstock, J. P., Emanuele, N. V., Levin, S. R., Henderson, W., Lee, H. S., et al. (1995) · Diabetes Care · doi:10.2337/diacare.18.8.1113 · Cited by 355
THE BASAL PLASMA GLUCOSE: A SIMPLE RELEVANT INDEX OF MATURITY‐ONSET DIABETES
HOLMAN, R. R., & TURNER, R. C. (1981) · Clinical Endocrinology · doi:10.1111/j.1365-2265.1981.tb00196.x · Cited by 64
Cited by
Hobart, J., & Cano, S. (2009) · Health Technology Assessment · doi:10.3310/hta13120 · Cited by 621
Evaluation of diagnostic tests when there is no gold standard. A review of methods
Rutjes, A., Reitsma, J., Coomarasamy, A., Khan, K., & Bossuyt, P. (2007) · Health Technology Assessment · doi:10.3310/hta11500 · Cited by 524
Moher, D., Pham, B., Lawson, M., & Klassen, T. (2003) · Health Technology Assessment · doi:10.3310/hta7410 · Cited by 500
Improving health outcomes with better patient understanding and education
Adams, R. (2010) · Risk Management and Healthcare Policy · doi:10.2147/rmhp.s7500 · Cited by 381
Self-Monitoring of Blood Glucose in Patients With Type 2 Diabetes Who Are Not Using Insulin
Welschen, L. M. C., Bloemendal, E., Nijpels, G., Dekker, J. M., Heine, R. J., Stalman, W. A. B., & Bouter, L. M. (2005) · Diabetes Care · doi:10.2337/diacare.28.6.1510 · Cited by 374
Metadata
- Authors
- Coster, Gulliford, Seed, Powrie, & Swaminathan
- Venue
- Health Technology Assessment
- Published
- 2000
- Volume
- 4
- Issue
- 12
- Pages
- i-iv, 1
- ISSN
- 1366-5278 (ISSN-L)
- 2046-4924
- OpenAlex
- W2112546627
- Cited by
- 245
- References
- 13
- FWCI
- 0.88
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- Funders
- Health Technology Assessment Programme (96/10/03)
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: Monitoring blood glucose control in diabetes mellitus: a systematic review. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.3310/hta4120
- The paper
- Coster, Gulliford, Seed, Powrie, & Swaminathan. (2000). Monitoring blood glucose control in diabetes mellitus: a systematic review. Health Technology Assessment. https://doi.org/10.3310/hta4120
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.