Christopher H. Schmid

Statistics and Probability · 2001–2017

A researcher in the Science corpus: 15 papers; trusts 12 researchers and is trusted by 15 researchers here, as inferred from the citation graph.

Subfields

Whom Christopher H. Schmid trusts overall

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

  1. L. Stevens
  2. Josef Coresh
  3. W. Viechtbauer
  4. A. Levey
  5. J. Sterne
  6. R. Rosenthal
  7. M. McCullough

Who trusts Christopher H. Schmid overall

  1. Malgorzata Roos
  2. Facundo Muñoz
  3. John P. A. Ioannidis
  4. Daniele Fanelli
  5. Leonhard Held
  6. J. Peters
  7. G. Banks
  8. Sven Kepes
  9. D. A. Cook
  10. Linyu Shi

Papers from Christopher H. Schmid's perspective

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

  1. The file drawer problem and tolerance for null results
  2. Controlling the risk of spurious findings from meta‐regression (Statistics in Medicine)
  3. Prevalence of chronic kidney disease in the United States. (Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA))
  4. The Nature of Statistical Learning Theory
  5. The appropriateness of asymmetry tests for publication bias in meta-analyses: a large survey (Canadian Medical Association Journal)
  6. Systematic Review of the Empirical Evidence of Study Publication Bias and Outcome Reporting Bias (PLoS ONE)
  7. Empirical evidence of bias in treatment effect estimates in controlled trials with different interventions and outcomes: meta-epidemiological study (British medical journal)
  8. Empirical evidence for selective reporting of outcomes in randomized trials: comparison of protocols to published articles. (Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA))
  9. Are the clinical effects of homoeopathy placebo effects? Comparative study of placebo-controlled trials of homoeopathy and allopathy. (The Lancet)
  10. How important are comprehensive literature searches and the assessment of trial quality in systematic reviews? Empirical study. (Health Technology Assessment)

Their papers