Andrew D. Oxman
Statistics and Probability · 2001–2016
A researcher in the Science corpus: 35 papers; trusts 5 researchers and is trusted by 17 researchers here, as inferred from the citation graph.
Subfields
- Statistics and Probability — 78 citations into it; #4,080 of 12,932 by trust here, #44 by citations
- Economics and Econometrics — 55 citations into it; #9,714 of 23,481 by trust here, #96 by citations
- General Health Professions — 55 citations into it; #2,698 of 4,781 by trust here, #56 by citations
- Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health — 51 citations into it; #689 of 2,368 by trust here, #10 by citations
Whom Andrew D. Oxman trusts overall
Their strongest outbound trust, strongest first, inferred from their citations.
Who trusts Andrew D. Oxman overall
- G. Guyatt
- Holger J. Schünemann
- M. Samuel
- Georgia Salanti
- J. Jakobsen
- J. Brożek
- Adriani Nikolakopoulou
- Julian P. T. Higgins
- Harry van Goor
- P. Moja
Papers from Andrew D. Oxman's perspective
Ordered by how strongly the researchers Andrew D. Oxman trusts endorse each paper. Same corpus, a different order for every researcher.
- GRADE guidelines: 1. Introduction-GRADE evidence profiles and summary of findings tables. (Journal of Clinical Epidemiology)
- GRADE guidelines: 2. Framing the question and deciding on important outcomes. (Journal of Clinical Epidemiology)
- Empirical evidence of bias in treatment effect estimates in controlled trials with different interventions and outcomes: meta-epidemiological study (British medical journal)
- Selective publication of antidepressant trials and its influence on apparent efficacy. (New England Journal of Medicine)
- External validity of randomised controlled trials: "to whom do the results of this trial apply?".
- When are randomised trials unnecessary? Picking signal from noise (British medical journal)
- Fracture prevention with vitamin D supplementation: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. (Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA))
- The safety of statins in clinical practice. (The Lancet)
- Pharmaceutical industry sponsorship and research outcome and quality: systematic review (British medical journal)
- Increased Cancer-Related Mortality for Patients With Type 2 Diabetes Who Use Sulfonylureas or Insulin (Diabetes Care)
Their papers
- GRADE guidelines: 1. Introduction-GRADE evidence profiles and summary of findings tables. (2011) — 9,069 citations
- GRADE: an emerging consensus on rating quality of evidence and strength of recommendations (2008) — 15,278 citations
- Improving the reporting of pragmatic trials: an extension of the CONSORT statement (2008) — 1,746 citations
- GRADE guidelines: 2. Framing the question and deciding on important outcomes. (2011) — 1,712 citations
- A pragmatic–explanatory continuum indicator summary (PRECIS): a tool to help trial designers (2009) — 1,448 citations
- GRADE guidelines: 5. Rating the quality of evidence--publication bias. (2011) — 1,582 citations
- GRADE guidelines: 8. Rating the quality of evidence--indirectness. (2011) — 1,166 citations
- GRADE guidelines: 7. Rating the quality of evidence--inconsistency. (2011) — 1,457 citations
- GRADE guidelines: 4. Rating the quality of evidence--study limitations (risk of bias). (2011) — 2,570 citations
- GRADE guidelines: 11. Making an overall rating of confidence in effect estimates for a single outcome and for all outcomes. (2013) — 683 citations
- GRADE guidelines: 12. Preparing summary of findings tables-binary outcomes. (2013) — 694 citations
- GRADE guidelines: 3. Rating the quality of evidence. (2011) — 7,351 citations
- What is “quality of evidence” and why is it important to clinicians? (2008) — 2,968 citations
- Publication bias in clinical trials due to statistical significance or direction of trial results. (2009) — 875 citations
- GRADE guidelines 6. Rating the quality of evidence--imprecision. (2011) — 2,352 citations
- GRADE guidelines: 14. Going from evidence to recommendations: the significance and presentation of recommendations. (2013) — 1,344 citations
- Grading quality of evidence and strength of recommendations (2004) — 9,080 citations
- Systems for grading the quality of evidence and the strength of recommendations I: Critical appraisal of existing approaches The GRADE Working Group (2004) — 1,198 citations
- GRADE guidelines: 15. Going from evidence to recommendation-determinants of a recommendation's direction and strength. (2013) — 862 citations
- GRADE guidelines: 13. Preparing summary of findings tables and evidence profiles-continuous outcomes. (2013) — 641 citations