The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Doctors' stories: the narrative structure of medical knowledge
Abstract
Reviewsat the same time fundamental public criticism of it and a need for alternative therapies (cf.pp. 31 9f.
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
Cited by
Thinking Like a Nurse: A Research-Based Model of Clinical Judgment in Nursing
Tanner, C. A. (2006) · Journal of Nursing Education · doi:10.3928/01484834-20060601-04 · Cited by 1,735
The biopsychosocial model 25 years later: principles, practice, and scientific inquiry
Borrell-Carrio, F. (2004) · The Annals of Family Medicine · doi:10.1370/afm.245 · Cited by 1,546
Epstein, R. M., Franks, P., Fiscella, K., Shields, C. G., Meldrum, S. C., Kravitz, R. L., & Duberstein, P. R. (2005) · Social Science & Medicine · doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2005.02.001 · Cited by 1,211
The art and science of clinical knowledge: evidence beyond measures and numbers
Malterud, K. (2001) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(01)05548-9 · Cited by 847
Analysis of Personal Narratives
Riessman, C. K. (2012) · The SAGE Handbook of Interview Research: The Complexity of the Craft · doi:10.4135/9781452218403.n26 · Cited by 770
Metadata
- Venue
- Choice Reviews Online
- Publisher
- American Library Association
- Published
- 1991-12-01
- Volume
- 29
- Issue
- 04
- Pages
- 29-2135-29-2135
- ISSN
- 0009-4978 (ISSN-L)
- 1523-8253
- OpenAlex
- W1573081283
- Cited by
- 672
- References
- 0
- Type
- book review
- 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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Doctors' stories: the narrative structure of medical knowledge. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.5860/choice.29-2135
- The paper
- Doctors' stories: the narrative structure of medical knowledge. (1991). Choice Reviews Online. https://doi.org/10.5860/choice.29-2135
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.
