W. Voorberg

General Health Professions · 2015

A researcher in the Science corpus: 1 paper; trusts 4 researchers and is trusted by 0 researchers here, as inferred from the citation graph.

Subfields

Whom W. Voorberg trusts overall

Their strongest outbound trust, strongest first, inferred from their citations.

  1. A. Liberati
  2. David Moher
  3. H. Chesbrough
  4. Douglas G. Altman
  5. J. Tetzlaff

Who trusts W. Voorberg overall

  1. Paul Andrew Booth
  2. C. Grönroos
  3. Anna-Sophie Oertzen
  4. S. Chaperon
  5. Candice Howarth

Papers from W. Voorberg's perspective

Ordered by how strongly the researchers W. Voorberg trusts endorse each paper. Same corpus, a different order for every researcher.

  1. The PRISMA Statement for Reporting Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses of Studies That Evaluate Health Care Interventions: Explanation and Elaboration (British medical journal)
  2. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement (British medical journal)
  3. DYNAMICS OF INDUSTRY AND INNOVATION: ORGANIZATIONS, NETWORKS AND SYSTEMS
  4. Does the CONSORT checklist improve the quality of reports of randomised controlled trials? A systematic review (Medical Journal of Australia)
  5. Network meta‐analysis for indirect treatment comparisons (Statistics in Medicine)
  6. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. (International Journal of Surgery)
  7. Addressing Reporting Biases
  8. Storylines of research in diffusion of innovation: a meta-narrative approach to systematic review. (Social Science & Medicine (1967))
  9. CONSORT for Reporting Randomized Controlled Trials in Journal and Conference Abstracts: Explanation and Elaboration (PLoS Medicine)
  10. GRADE: an emerging consensus on rating quality of evidence and strength of recommendations (British medical journal)

Their papers