Stuart J. Pocock

Statistics and Probability · 2000–2021

A researcher in the Science corpus: 40 papers; trusts 12 researchers and is trusted by 24 researchers here, as inferred from the citation graph.

Subfields

Whom Stuart J. Pocock trusts overall

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

  1. David Moher
  2. Douglas G. Altman
  3. K. F. Schulz
  4. John P. A. Ioannidis
  5. Peter Jüni
  6. Ian R. White
  7. S. Senn
  8. Patrick Royston
  9. Matthias Egger
  10. Diana Elbourne

Who trusts Stuart J. Pocock overall

  1. Douglas G. Altman
  2. K. F. Schulz
  3. Kosuke Imai
  4. David Moher
  5. Jared C. Foster
  6. Jan Derks
  7. Guha Balakrishnan
  8. Gary S. Collins
  9. James Jordon
  10. S. Cuschieri

Papers from Stuart J. Pocock's perspective

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

  1. CONSORT 2010 Explanation and Elaboration: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials (British medical journal)
  2. Does the CONSORT checklist improve the quality of reports of randomised controlled trials? A systematic review (Medical Journal of Australia)
  3. External validity of randomised controlled trials: "to whom do the results of this trial apply?".
  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. Multiple imputation using chained equations: Issues and guidance for practice (Statistics in Medicine)
  6. Non‐inferiority trials: design concepts and issues – the encounters of academic consultants in statistics (Statistics in Medicine)
  7. WHO antenatal care randomised trial for the evaluation of a new model of routine antenatal care. (The Lancet)
  8. Dichotomizing continuous predictors in multiple regression: a bad idea (Statistics in Medicine)
  9. Multiple imputation for missing data in epidemiological and clinical research: potential and pitfalls (British medical journal)
  10. [The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies]. (Revista Española de Salud Pública)

Their papers