J. Wetterslev

Statistics and Probability · 2008–2017

A researcher in the Science corpus: 9 papers; trusts 9 researchers and is trusted by 5 researchers here, as inferred from the citation graph.

Subfields

• Statistics and Probability — 67 citations into it; #6,774 of 12,932 by trust here, #3,102 by citations
• Economics and Econometrics — 22 citations into it
• Surgery — 15 citations into it
• Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health — 13 citations into it; #2,309 of 2,368 by trust here, #1,481 by citations
• Molecular Biology — 12 citations into it; #15,736 of 17,773 by trust here, #13,891 by citations
• General Health Professions — 8 citations into it
• Pharmacology — 6 citations into it
• Social Sciences & Humanities — 6 citations into it

Whom J. Wetterslev trusts overall

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

1. Julian P. T. Higgins
2. John P. A. Ioannidis
3. K. Thorlund
4. S. Thompson
5. J. Brok
6. G. Guyatt
7. C. Gluud
8. Hervé Abdi
9. Rebecca M. Turner
10. G. Bjelakovic

Who trusts J. Wetterslev overall

1. J. Jakobsen
2. J. Brok
3. C. Gluud
4. K. Thorlund
5. John P. A. Ioannidis

Papers from J. Wetterslev's perspective

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

1. The appropriateness of asymmetry tests for publication bias in meta-analyses: a large survey (Canadian Medical Association Journal)
2. GRADE guidelines: 1. Introduction-GRADE evidence profiles and summary of findings tables. (Journal of Clinical Epidemiology)
3. Empirical evidence of bias in treatment effect estimates in controlled trials with different interventions and outcomes: meta-epidemiological study (British medical journal)
4. Predicting the extent of heterogeneity in meta-analysis, using empirical data from the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (International Journal of Epidemiology)
5. Evaluating non-randomised intervention studies. (Health Technology Assessment)
6. Statistical heterogeneity in systematic reviews of clinical trials: a critical appraisal of guidelines and practice (Journal of Health Services Research and Policy)
7. The Hartung-Knapp-Sidik-Jonkman method for random effects meta-analysis is straightforward and considerably outperforms the standard DerSimonian-Laird method (BMC Medical Research Methodology)
8. The Impact of Study Size on Meta-analyses: Examination of Underpowered Studies in Cochrane Reviews (PLoS ONE)
9. Contour-enhanced meta-analysis funnel plots help distinguish publication bias from other causes of asymmetry. (Journal of Clinical Epidemiology)
10. A re-evaluation of random-effects meta-analysis (Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series A,)

Their papers

• Trial sequential analysis reveals insufficient information size and potentially false positive results in many meta-analyses. (2008) — 985 citations
• Trial sequential analysis may establish when firm evidence is reached in cumulative meta-analysis. (2008) — 1,687 citations
• When and how should multiple imputation be used for handling missing data in randomised clinical trials – a practical guide with flowcharts (2017) — 2,280 citations
• Can trial sequential monitoring boundaries reduce spurious inferences from meta-analyses? (2009) — 758 citations
• Thresholds for statistical and clinical significance in systematic reviews with meta-analytic methods (2014) — 608 citations
• Trial Sequential Analysis in systematic reviews with meta-analysis (2017) — 1,038 citations
• Targeted temperature management at 33°C versus 36°C after cardiac arrest. (2013) — 2,289 citations
• Hydroxyethyl starch 130/0.42 versus Ringer's acetate in severe sepsis. (2012) — 1,536 citations
• Apparently conclusive meta-analyses may be inconclusive--Trial sequential analysis adjustment of random error risk due to repetitive testing of accumulating data in apparently conclusive neonatal meta-analyses. (2009) — 801 citations