Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 320

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 9 of the 9 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

The n-of-1 Randomized Controlled Trial: Clinical Usefulness: Our Three-Year Experience

Guyatt, Gordon H., Keller, Jana L., Jaeschke, Roman, Rosenbloom, David, Adachi, Jonathan D., Newhouse, Michael T.·1990·Annals of Internal Medicine

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To review the feasibility and effectiveness of n-of-1 randomized controlled trials (n-of-1 trials) in clinical practice. DESIGN: Individual trials were double-blind, randomized, multiple crossover trials. The impact of n-of-1 trials was determined by eliciting physicians' plans of management and confidence in those plans before and after each trial. SETTING: Referral service doing n-of-1 trials at the requests of community and academic physicians. OBJECT of ANALYSIS: All trials were planned, started, and completed by the n-of-1 service. MEASURES OF OUTCOME: The proportion of planned n-of-1 trials that were completed and the proportion that provided a definite clinical or statistical answer. A definite clinical answer was achieved if an n-of-1 trial resulted in a high level of physician's confidence in the management plan. Specific criteria were developed for classifying an n-of-1 trial as providing a definite statistical answer. MAIN RESULTS: Seventy-three n-of-1 trials were planned in various clinical situations. Of 70 n-of-1 trials begun, 57 were completed. The reasons for not completing n-of-1 trials were patients' or physicians' noncompliance or patients' concurrent illness. Of 57 n-of-1 trials completed, 50 provided a definite clinical or statistical answer. In 15 trials (39% of trials in which appropriate data were available), the results prompted physicians to change their "prior to the trial" plan of management (in 11 trials, the physicians stopped the drug therapy that they had planned to continue indefinitely). CONCLUSION: We interpret the results as supporting the feasibility and usefulness of n-of-1 trials in clinical practice.

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 · 10.7326/0003-4819-112-4-293

Cites

9 of 9 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 9 references

Cited by

See all 320

Metadata

Authors
Guyatt, G. H., Keller, J. L., Jaeschke, R., Rosenbloom, D., Adachi, J. D., & Newhouse, M. T.
Venue
Annals of Internal Medicine
Published
1990-02-15
Volume
112
Issue
4
Pages
293-299
ISSN
  • 0003-4819 (ISSN-L)
  • 1539-3704
OpenAlex
W2050035272
Cited by
320
References
9
FWCI
8.09
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 n-of-1 Randomized Controlled Trial: Clinical Usefulness: Our Three-Year Experience. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.7326/0003-4819-112-4-293
The paper
Guyatt, G. H., Keller, J. L., Jaeschke, R., Rosenbloom, D., Adachi, J. D., & Newhouse, M. T. (1990). The n-of-1 Randomized Controlled Trial: Clinical Usefulness: Our Three-Year Experience. Annals of Internal Medicine. https://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-112-4-293

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.