Holger J. Schünemann
Statistics and Probability · 2004–2020
A researcher in the Science corpus: 40 papers; trusts 8 researchers and is trusted by 16 researchers here, as inferred from the citation graph.
Subfields
- Statistics and Probability — 97 citations into it; #3,998 of 12,932 by trust here, #40 by citations
- Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health — 61 citations into it; #455 of 2,368 by trust here, #9 by citations
- Economics and Econometrics — 46 citations into it; #7,397 of 23,481 by trust here, #87 by citations
Whom Holger J. Schünemann trusts overall
Their strongest outbound trust, strongest first, inferred from their citations.
Who trusts Holger J. Schünemann overall
Papers from Holger J. Schünemann's perspective
Ordered by how strongly the researchers Holger J. Schünemann trusts endorse each paper. Same corpus, a different order for every researcher.
- GRADE guidelines: 2. Framing the question and deciding on important outcomes. (Journal of Clinical Epidemiology)
- GRADE guidelines: 1. Introduction-GRADE evidence profiles and summary of findings tables. (Journal of Clinical Epidemiology)
- When are randomised trials unnecessary? Picking signal from noise (British medical journal)
- Selective publication of antidepressant trials and its influence on apparent efficacy. (New England Journal of Medicine)
- The safety of statins in clinical practice. (The Lancet)
- Increased Cancer-Related Mortality for Patients With Type 2 Diabetes Who Use Sulfonylureas or Insulin (Diabetes Care)
- Pharmaceutical industry sponsorship and research outcome and quality: systematic review (British medical journal)
- Empirical evidence of bias in treatment effect estimates in controlled trials with different interventions and outcomes: meta-epidemiological study (British medical journal)
- Stopping randomized trials early for benefit and estimation of treatment effects: systematic review and meta-regression analysis. (Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA))
- Evidence b(i)ased medicine—selective reporting from studies sponsored by pharmaceutical industry: review of studies in new drug applications (British medical journal)
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
- GRADE guidelines: 2. Framing the question and deciding on important outcomes. (2011) — 1,712 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
- ROBINS-I: a tool for assessing risk of bias in non-randomised studies of interventions (2016) — 17,786 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: 8. Rating the quality of evidence - indirectness]. (2012) — 639 citations
- GRADE guidelines: 11. Making an overall rating of confidence in effect estimates for a single outcome and for all outcomes. (2013) — 683 citations
- The GRADE Working Group clarifies the construct of certainty of evidence (2017) — 611 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
- Stopping randomized trials early for benefit and estimation of treatment effects: systematic review and meta-regression analysis. (2010) — 602 citations
- GRADE guidelines 6. Rating the quality of evidence--imprecision. (2011) — 2,352 citations
- [GRADE guidelines: 7. Rating the quality of evidence - inconsistency]. (2012) — 767 citations
- GRADE guidelines: 14. Going from evidence to recommendations: the significance and presentation of recommendations. (2013) — 1,344 citations
- [GRADE guidelines: 1. Introduction - GRADE evidence profiles and summary of findings tables]. (2012) — 739 citations
- Grading quality of evidence and strength of recommendations (2004) — 9,080 citations