A. Rutjes
Statistics and Probability · 2004–2020
A researcher in the Science corpus: 8 papers; trusts 4 researchers and is trusted by 7 researchers here, as inferred from the citation graph.
Subfields
- Statistics and Probability — 49 citations into it; #6,306 of 12,932 by trust here, #962 by citations
- General Health Professions — 20 citations into it
- Surgery — 5 citations into it
Whom A. Rutjes trusts overall
Their strongest outbound trust, strongest first, inferred from their citations.
- Patrick M. M. Bossuyt
- Johannes B Reitsma
- P. Whiting
- H. V. van Houwelingen
- Constantine Gatsonis
- A. Glas
- J. Deeks
- L. Arends
Who trusts A. Rutjes overall
- Johannes B Reitsma
- R. Riley
- Karel G. M. Moons
- S. Gilbody
- R. Harbord
- Mariska M. G. Leeflang
- J. Deeks
- Evelina Tacconelli
- G. Vilagut
Papers from A. Rutjes's perspective
Ordered by how strongly the researchers A. Rutjes trusts endorse each paper. Same corpus, a different order for every researcher.
- Properties of the summary receiver operating characteristic (SROC) curve for diagnostic test data (Statistics in Medicine)
- Conducting systematic reviews of diagnostic studies: didactic guidelines (BMC Medical Research Methodology)
- Sources of Variation and Bias in Studies of Diagnostic Accuracy (Annals of Internal Medicine)
- Systematic reviews in health care: Systematic reviews of evaluations of diagnostic and screening tests. (British medical journal)
- The architecture of diagnostic research (British medical journal)
- Advanced methods in meta‐analysis: multivariate approach and meta‐regression (Statistics in Medicine)
- A hierarchical regression approach to meta‐analysis of diagnostic test accuracy evaluations (Statistics in Medicine)
- Using and Reporting the Delphi Method for Selecting Healthcare Quality Indicators: A Systematic Review (PLoS ONE)
- STARD 2015 guidelines for reporting diagnostic accuracy studies: explanation and elaboration (BMJ Open)
- Delphi methodology in health research: how to do it?☆
Their papers
- Bivariate analysis of sensitivity and specificity produces informative summary measures in diagnostic reviews. (2005) — 3,200 citations
- Sources of Variation and Bias in Studies of Diagnostic Accuracy (2004) — 836 citations
- A review of solutions for diagnostic accuracy studies with an imperfect or missing reference standard. (2009) — 386 citations
- Evidence of bias and variation in diagnostic accuracy studies (2006) — 635 citations
- Preferred Reporting Items for a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Diagnostic Test Accuracy Studies: The PRISMA-DTA Statement (2018) — 2,772 citations
- Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis of diagnostic test accuracy studies (PRISMA-DTA): explanation, elaboration, and checklist (2020) — 638 citations
- QUADAS-2: A Revised Tool for the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (2011) — 3,790 citations
- Evaluation of QUADAS, a tool for the quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies (2006) — 726 citations