Matthew J. Page
Statistics and Probability · 2016–2021
A researcher in the Science corpus: 14 papers; trusts 29 researchers and is trusted by 12 researchers here, as inferred from the citation graph.
Subfields
- Statistics and Probability — 274 citations into it; #4,594 of 12,932 by trust here, #741 by citations
- General Health Professions — 138 citations into it
- Economics and Econometrics — 76 citations into it
- Sociology and Political Science — 62 citations into it
- Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health — 37 citations into it
- History and Philosophy of Science — 17 citations into it; #229 of 602 by trust here, #139 by citations
- Education — 12 citations into it
- Epidemiology — 11 citations into it
Whom Matthew J. Page trusts overall
Their strongest outbound trust, strongest first, inferred from their citations.
- David Moher
- Douglas G. Altman
- A. Liberati
- Larissa Shamseer
- J. McKenzie
- G. Wong
- Mike Clarke
- J. Tetzlaff
- Patrick M. M. Bossuyt
- Julian P. T. Higgins
Who trusts Matthew J. Page overall
- J. Yepes‐Nuñez
- M. Rethlefsen
- J. McKenzie
- G. Úrrutia
- R. O’Dea
- S. Kirtley
- Patrick M. M. Bossuyt
- Marta Romero-García
- I. Boutron
- S. Waffenschmidt
Papers from Matthew J. Page's perspective
Ordered by how strongly the researchers Matthew J. Page trusts endorse each paper. Same corpus, a different order for every researcher.
- Guidance for Developers of Health Research Reporting Guidelines (PLoS Medicine)
- Reducing waste from incomplete or unusable reports of biomedical research. (The Lancet)
- Evaluations of the uptake and impact of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) Statement and extensions: a scoping review (Systematic Reviews)
- PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR): Checklist and Explanation (Annals of Internal Medicine)
- PRISMA 2020 explanation and elaboration: updated guidance and exemplars for reporting systematic reviews (British medical journal)
- PRISMA-S: an extension to the PRISMA statement for reporting literature searches in systematic reviews (Journal of the Medical Library Association)
- Meta-analysis and the science of research synthesis (Nature)
- Strengthening the reporting of observational studies in epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies (British medical journal)
- Enhancing transparency in reporting the synthesis of qualitative research: ENTREQ (BMC Medical Research Methodology)
- The PRISMA Extension Statement for Reporting of Systematic Reviews Incorporating Network Meta-analyses of Health Care Interventions: Checklist and Explanations (Annals of Internal Medicine)
Their papers
- PRISMA 2020 explanation and elaboration: updated guidance and exemplars for reporting systematic reviews (2020) — 10,812 citations
- Evaluations of the uptake and impact of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) Statement and extensions: a scoping review (2017) — 633 citations
- PRISMA-S: an extension to the PRISMA statement for reporting literature searches in systematic reviews (2021) — 1,415 citations
- Updating guidance for reporting systematic reviews: development of the PRISMA 2020 statement. (2020) — 2,634 citations
- RoB 2: a revised tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials (2019) — 28,662 citations
- The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews (2020) — 94,440 citations
- The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. (2021) — 3,176 citations
- Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta‐analyses in ecology and evolutionary biology: a PRISMA extension (2021) — 602 citations
- PRISMA2020: An R package and Shiny app for producing PRISMA 2020‐compliant flow diagrams, with interactivity for optimised digital transparency and Open Synthesis (2021) — 3,513 citations
- The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews (2021) — 25,061 citations
- Assessing risk of bias in a randomized trial (2019) — 2,351 citations
- Updated guidance for trusted systematic reviews: a new edition of the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. (2019) — 5,068 citations
- Assessing risk of bias due to missing results in a synthesis (2019) — 665 citations
- A revised tool for assessing risk of bias in randomized trials (2016) — 1,588 citations