Citation Quality Inspector

Citation support audit

Scope note: Only the excerpt described in the request is available. The full article, methods, sample, results tables, and citation metadata have not been checked. This is a preliminary source-to-claim review, not a full appraisal.

Safer wording

Claim A: “The abstract reports improved attendance in a pilot study; the supplied excerpt does not provide a percentage effect.”

• Claim B: “The abstract says most participants found the app easy to use.”

These rewrites describe only the information reported in the supplied excerpt. They do not establish causality, representativeness, statistical significance, or a population-wide effect.

Verification needed

1. Retrieve the full article and confirm the title, authors, journal, year, DOI, and version.
2. Locate the attendance outcome in the methods and results; record the measure, numerator/denominator, comparator, time period, uncertainty interval, and analysis population.
3. Check whether the study design supports causal language such as “reduced.” If not, use an associational or descriptive formulation.
4. Find the exact participant survey item, response count, and wording before making claims about preference.
5. Note limitations, missing data, and conflicts that materially qualify either result.

Risk summary

The numerical claim A is not traceable to the available excerpt and should not be published with “40%.” Claim B changes both quantity (“most” to “all”) and construct (“easy to use” to “preferred”); replace it with the excerpt’s narrower language. Reassess both after the full source is reviewed.