Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 1,932

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

International Journal of Nursing Studies

·2000·Nursing Older People

Abstract

This is a methodological study in which a case report is used to retrospectively analyse the link between a successful pilot study and stalled main study to identify potential methodological weaknesses in the planning process. The analysis identified unanticipated influences related to hospital processes and discipline boundaries that adversely influenced participant recruitment and retention for a clinical trial. The findings of the study demonstrate that, whilst the pilot is an important step in research planning to confirm the design and operational processes for a study, a thorough analysis of the relevant health service environment is an important additional objective for the pilot study. Author Keywords: Pilot study; Research methodology; Postoperative pain 1.

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 · 10.7748/nop.11.10.26.s15

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.

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

Cited by

See all 1,932

Metadata

Venue
Nursing Older People
Published
2000-02-01
Volume
11
Issue
10
Pages
26-26
ISSN
  • 1472-0795 (ISSN-L)
  • 2047-8941
OpenAlex
W4233864979
Cited by
1,932
References
0
FWCI
30.84
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: International Journal of Nursing Studies. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.7748/nop.11.10.26.s15
The paper
International Journal of Nursing Studies. (2000). Nursing Older People. https://doi.org/10.7748/nop.11.10.26.s15

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.