R. O’Dea

Statistics and Probability · 2021

A researcher in the Science corpus: 2 papers; trusts 2 researchers and is trusted by 0 researchers here, as inferred from the citation graph.

Subfields

Whom R. O’Dea trusts overall

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

  1. David Moher
  2. Shinichi Nakagawa
  3. Matthew J. Page
  4. Mourad Ouzzani
  5. J. Koricheva
  6. John P. A. Ioannidis
  7. J. Gurevitch
  8. Andrew Pullin
  9. J. Hadfield
  10. Andrew Gelman

Papers from R. O’Dea's perspective

Ordered by how strongly the researchers R. O’Dea trusts endorse each paper. Same corpus, a different order for every researcher.

  1. Why Most Published Research Findings Are False
  2. Evaluations of the uptake and impact of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) Statement and extensions: a scoping review (Systematic Reviews)
  3. ROSES RepOrting standards for Systematic Evidence Syntheses: pro forma, flow-diagram and descriptive summary of the plan and conduct of environmental systematic reviews and systematic maps (Environmental Evidence)
  4. GRADE: an emerging consensus on rating quality of evidence and strength of recommendations (British medical journal)
  5. Missing inaction: the dangers of ignoring missing data. (Trends in Ecology & Evolution)
  6. The PRISMA Extension Statement for Reporting of Systematic Reviews Incorporating Network Meta-analyses of Health Care Interventions: Checklist and Explanations (Annals of Internal Medicine)
  7. Meta-analysis and the science of research synthesis (Nature)
  8. PRISMA 2020 explanation and elaboration: updated guidance and exemplars for reporting systematic reviews (British medical journal)
  9. PRISMA-S: an extension to the PRISMA statement for reporting literature searches in systematic reviews (Journal of the Medical Library Association)
  10. Adjusting for publication bias in the presence of heterogeneity (Statistics in Medicine)

Their papers