Jan P. Vandenbroucke

Statistics and Probability · 2004–2014

A researcher in the Science corpus: 13 papers; trusts 7 researchers and is trusted by 11 researchers here, as inferred from the citation graph.

Subfields

Whom Jan P. Vandenbroucke trusts overall

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

  1. Douglas G. Altman
  2. M. Garton
  3. David Moher
  4. E. von Elm
  5. Patrick Royston
  6. T. Chandola
  7. A. Chan
  8. K. F. Schulz
  9. Matthias Egger
  10. Peter Jüni

Who trusts Jan P. Vandenbroucke overall

  1. Douglas G. Altman
  2. S. Cuschieri
  3. Jan Derks
  4. Gary S. Collins
  5. T. L. Chu
  6. David Moher
  7. L. Degenhardt
  8. K. F. Schulz
  9. E. von Elm
  10. P. Pozo

Papers from Jan P. Vandenbroucke's perspective

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

  1. Does the CONSORT checklist improve the quality of reports of randomised controlled trials? A systematic review (Medical Journal of Australia)
  2. Dichotomizing continuous predictors in multiple regression: a bad idea (Statistics in Medicine)
  3. The Revised CONSORT Statement for Reporting Randomized Trials: Explanation and Elaboration (Annals of Internal Medicine)
  4. Evidence b(i)ased medicine—selective reporting from studies sponsored by pharmaceutical industry: review of studies in new drug applications (British medical journal)
  5. [The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies]. (Revista Española de Salud Pública)
  6. Systematic Review of the Empirical Evidence of Study Publication Bias and Outcome Reporting Bias (PLoS ONE)
  7. CONSORT 2010 Explanation and Elaboration: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials (British medical journal)
  8. Reducing waste from incomplete or unusable reports of biomedical research. (The Lancet)
  9. Principles of multilevel modelling. (International Journal of Epidemiology)
  10. A comparison of observational studies and randomized, controlled trials. (New England Journal of Medicine)

Their papers