The DOI matches its Crossref record.
The Consultation: An Approach to Learning and Teaching.
Abstract
'the research which Pendleton and his colleagues have done is high class and relevant. The results are coherent, and on the whole easy to read and absorb.' The Lancet
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
The “educational alliance” as a framework for reconceptualizing feedback in medical education.
Telio, S., Ajjawi, R., & Regehr, G. (2015) · Academic Medicine · doi:10.1097/acm.0000000000000560 · Cited by 572
Davis, S., Duane, B., Loxley, A., & Quigley, D. (2022) · BMC Medical Education · doi:10.1186/s12909-022-03630-1 · Cited by 481
Giving feedback in clinical settings
Cantillon, P., & Sargeant, J. (2008) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.a1961 · Cited by 460
The SEGUE Framework for teaching and assessing communication skills
Makoul, G. (2001) · Patient Education and Counseling · doi:10.1016/s0738-3991(01)00136-7 · Cited by 457
Doctor–patient communication about drugs: the evidence for shared decision making
Stevenson, F. A., Barry, C. A., Britten, N., Barber, N., & Bradley, C. P. (2000) · Social Science & Medicine · doi:10.1016/s0277-9536(99)00376-7 · Cited by 434
Metadata
- Venue
- Annals of Internal Medicine
- Publisher
- American College of Physicians
- Published
- 1984-10-01
- Volume
- 101
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 577-577
- ISSN
- 0003-4819 (ISSN-L)
- 1539-3704
- OpenAlex
- W634110235
- Cited by
- 585
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 10.75
- 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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: The Consultation: An Approach to Learning and Teaching. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.7326/0003-4819-101-4-577_2
- The paper
- The Consultation: An Approach to Learning and Teaching. (1984). Annals of Internal Medicine. https://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-101-4-577_2
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.
