J. Peters

Statistics and Probability · British medical journal · 2006–2011

A researcher in the Science corpus: 4 papers; trusts 6 researchers and is trusted by 4 researchers here, as inferred from the citation graph.

Subfields

Whom J. Peters trusts overall

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

  1. A. Sutton
  2. J. Sterne
  3. Julian P. T. Higgins
  4. Richard L. Tweedie
  5. N. Terrin
  6. Petra Macaskill
  7. Matthias Egger
  8. S. Thompson
  9. Christopher H. Schmid
  10. Stephen D. Walter

Who trusts J. Peters overall

  1. Linyu Shi
  2. Lifeng Lin
  3. Evan Weingarten
  4. Torstein Låg
  5. Kristina Loderer
  6. Michelle Vaccaro
  7. Jakob Pietschnig
  8. Byu Scholarsarchive
  9. Lifeng Lin
  10. Haitao Chu

Papers from J. Peters's perspective

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

  1. Controlling the risk of spurious findings from meta‐regression (Statistics in Medicine)
  2. Systematic Review of the Empirical Evidence of Study Publication Bias and Outcome Reporting Bias (PLoS ONE)
  3. Are the clinical effects of homoeopathy placebo effects? Comparative study of placebo-controlled trials of homoeopathy and allopathy. (The Lancet)
  4. The appropriateness of asymmetry tests for publication bias in meta-analyses: a large survey (Canadian Medical Association Journal)
  5. Empirical evidence of bias in treatment effect estimates in controlled trials with different interventions and outcomes: meta-epidemiological study (British medical journal)
  6. How important are comprehensive literature searches and the assessment of trial quality in systematic reviews? Empirical study. (Health Technology Assessment)
  7. The file drawer problem and tolerance for null results
  8. The impact of outcome reporting bias in randomised controlled trials on a cohort of systematic reviews (British medical journal)
  9. Why Most Discovered True Associations Are Inflated (Epidemiology)
  10. The performance of tests of publication bias and other sample size effects in systematic reviews of diagnostic test accuracy was assessed. (Journal of Clinical Epidemiology)

Their papers