A. Hrõbjartsson

Statistics and Probability · 2001–2024

A researcher in the Science corpus: 14 papers; trusts 2 researchers and is trusted by 6 researchers here, as inferred from the citation graph.

Subfields

• Statistics and Probability — 217 citations into it; #5,806 of 12,932 by trust here, #325 by citations
• General Health Professions — 94 citations into it

Whom A. Hrõbjartsson trusts overall

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

1. David Moher

Who trusts A. Hrõbjartsson overall

1. Lifeng Lin
2. Douglas G. Altman
3. John P. A. Ioannidis
4. David Moher
5. K. F. Schulz
6. Ted J. Kaptchuk
7. Daniele Fanelli
8. Haitao Chu
9. D. Moerman
10. F. Benedetti

Papers from A. Hrõbjartsson's perspective

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

1. Systematic Review of the Empirical Evidence of Study Publication Bias and Outcome Reporting Bias (PLoS ONE)
2. Systematic Review and Meta-analysis Supplements for Primary and Secondary Prevention: Mortality in Randomized Trials of Antioxidant
3. GRADE: an emerging consensus on rating quality of evidence and strength of recommendations (British medical journal)
4. 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)
5. PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR): Checklist and Explanation (Annals of Internal Medicine)
6. PRISMA 2020 explanation and elaboration: updated guidance and exemplars for reporting systematic reviews (British medical journal)
7. Synthesis without meta-analysis (SWiM) in systematic reviews: reporting guideline (British medical journal)
8. PRISMA-S: an extension to the PRISMA statement for reporting literature searches in systematic reviews (Journal of the Medical Library Association)
9. Meta-analysis and the science of research synthesis (Nature)
10. Updating guidance for reporting systematic reviews: development of the PRISMA 2020 statement. (Journal of Clinical Epidemiology)

Their papers

• Empirical evidence for selective reporting of outcomes in randomized trials: comparison of protocols to published articles. (2004) — 1,810 citations
• SPIRIT 2013 statement: defining standard protocol items for clinical trials. (2013) — 6,010 citations
• ROBINS-I: a tool for assessing risk of bias in non-randomised studies of interventions (2016) — 17,786 citations
• PRISMA 2020 explanation and elaboration: updated guidance and exemplars for reporting systematic reviews (2020) — 10,812 citations
• RoB 2: a revised tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials (2019) — 28,662 citations
• SPIRIT 2013 explanation and elaboration: guidance for protocols of clinical trials (2013) — 5,077 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
• A tool to assess risk of bias in non-randomized follow-up studies of exposure effects (ROBINS-E) (2024) — 789 citations
• The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews (2021) — 25,061 citations
• A revised tool for assessing risk of bias in randomized trials (2016) — 1,588 citations
• Guidelines for Reporting Reliability and Agreement Studies (GRRAS) were proposed. (2011) — 2,607 citations
• Placebo interventions for all clinical conditions. (2004) — 598 citations
• Is the placebo powerless? An analysis of clinical trials comparing placebo with no treatment. (2001) — 1,500 citations