Patrick M. M. Bossuyt

Statistics and Probability · 2003–2021

A researcher in the Science corpus: 26 papers; trusts 13 researchers and is trusted by 9 researchers here, as inferred from the citation graph.

Subfields

• Statistics and Probability — 271 citations into it; #5,384 of 12,932 by trust here, #353 by citations
• General Health Professions — 110 citations into it; #3,772 of 4,781 by trust here, #409 by citations
• Economics and Econometrics — 80 citations into it
• Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health — 46 citations into it
• Surgery — 31 citations into it
• History and Philosophy of Science — 20 citations into it
• Critical Care and Intensive Care Medicine — 7 citations into it

Whom Patrick M. M. Bossuyt trusts overall

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

1. David Moher
2. Douglas G. Altman
3. Johannes B Reitsma
4. Matthew J. Page
5. Gary S. Collins
6. A. Liberati
7. J. Deeks
8. K. F. Schulz
9. Julian P. T. Higgins
10. J. McKenzie

Who trusts Patrick M. M. Bossuyt overall

1. Johannes B Reitsma
2. Douglas G. Altman
3. David Moher
4. Lisa M. McShane
5. A. Rutjes
6. Matthew J. Page
7. W. Hopkins
8. K. F. Schulz
9. R. Harbord
10. Sally Hopewell

Papers from Patrick M. M. Bossuyt's perspective

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

1. Reducing waste from incomplete or unusable reports of biomedical research. (The Lancet)
2. Strengthening the reporting of observational studies in epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies (British medical journal)
3. Transparent reporting of a multivariable prediction model for individual prognosis or diagnosis (TRIPOD): The TRIPOD statement
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. PRISMA-S: an extension to the PRISMA statement for reporting literature searches in systematic reviews (Journal of the Medical Library Association)
8. Meta-analysis and the science of research synthesis (Nature)
9. Enhancing transparency in reporting the synthesis of qualitative research: ENTREQ (BMC Medical Research Methodology)
10. Synthesis without meta-analysis (SWiM) in systematic reviews: reporting guideline (British medical journal)

Their papers

• Bivariate analysis of sensitivity and specificity produces informative summary measures in diagnostic reviews. (2005) — 3,200 citations
• The STARD statement for reporting studies of diagnostic accuracy: explanation and elaboration. (2003) — 791 citations
• The STARD Statement for Reporting Studies of Diagnostic Accuracy: Explanation and Elaboration (2003) — 1,546 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
• PRISMA 2020 explanation and elaboration: updated guidance and exemplars for reporting systematic reviews (2020) — 10,812 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
• Updating guidance for reporting systematic reviews: development of the PRISMA 2020 statement. (2020) — 2,634 citations
• STARD 2015: an updated list of essential items for reporting diagnostic accuracy studies (2015) — 3,489 citations
• STARD 2015 guidelines for reporting diagnostic accuracy studies: explanation and elaboration (2016) — 2,218 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
• The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews (2021) — 25,061 citations
• Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis of diagnostic test accuracy studies (PRISMA-DTA): explanation, elaboration, and checklist (2020) — 638 citations
• Calibration: the Achilles heel of predictive analytics (2019) — 1,657 citations
• STARD 2015: An Updated List of Essential Items for Reporting Diagnostic Accuracy Studies. (2015) — 654 citations
• Development and validation of the Emergency Department Assessment of Chest pain Score and 2 h accelerated diagnostic protocol (2014) — 238 citations
• Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Diagnostic Test Accuracy (2013) — 1,201 citations
• Recommendations for liver transplantation for hepatocellular carcinoma: an international consensus conference report (2011) — 956 citations