Journal of Clinical Epidemiology

Papers
(The H4-Index of Journal of Clinical Epidemiology is 49. The table below lists those papers that are above that threshold based on CrossRef citation counts [max. 250 papers]. The publications cover those that have been published in the past four years, i.e., from 2020-03-01 to 2024-03-01.)
ArticleCitations
Updating guidance for reporting systematic reviews: development of the PRISMA 2020 statement951
The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews920
GRADE guidelines 26: informative statements to communicate the findings of systematic reviews of interventions464
Cochrane Rapid Reviews Methods Group offers evidence-informed guidance to conduct rapid reviews438
Logistic regression was as good as machine learning for predicting major chronic diseases228
A full systematic review was completed in 2 weeks using automation tools: a case study205
GRADE Guidelines 28: Use of GRADE for the assessment of evidence about prognostic factors: rating certainty in identification of groups of patients with different absolute risks188
Reporting scoping reviews—PRISMA ScR extension159
GRADE guidelines: 21 part 1. Study design, risk of bias, and indirectness in rating the certainty across a body of evidence for test accuracy158
GRADE guidelines: 21 part 2. Test accuracy: inconsistency, imprecision, publication bias, and other domains for rating the certainty of evidence and presenting it in evidence profiles and summary of f153
The revised Cochrane risk of bias tool for randomized trials (RoB 2) showed low interrater reliability and challenges in its application136
Framework for the treatment and reporting of missing data in observational studies: The Treatment And Reporting of Missing data in Observational Studies framework129
Defining Rapid Reviews: a systematic scoping review and thematic analysis of definitions and defining characteristics of rapid reviews128
No clear choice between Newcastle–Ottawa Scale and Appraisal Tool for Cross-Sectional Studies to assess methodological quality in cross-sectional studies of health-related quality of life and breast c123
Social media can have an impact on how we manage and investigate the COVID-19 pandemic122
COVID-19 coronavirus research has overall low methodological quality thus far: case in point for chloroquine/hydroxychloroquine116
Machine learning algorithms performed no better than regression models for prognostication in traumatic brain injury115
Patient Health Questionnaire-9 scores do not accurately estimate depression prevalence: individual participant data meta-analysis109
GRADE guidelines 32: GRADE offers guidance on choosing targets of GRADE certainty of evidence ratings108
Conducting high quality scoping reviews-challenges and solutions107
Quality assessment of prevalence studies: a systematic review101
Many researchers were not compliant with their published data sharing statement: a mixed-methods study97
A framework for identifying and mitigating the equity harms of COVID-19 policy interventions97
PCORnet® 2020: current state, accomplishments, and future directions90
Nearly 80 systematic reviews were published each day: Observational study on trends in epidemiology and reporting over the years 2000-201989
Ignoring competing events in the analysis of survival data may lead to biased results: a nonmathematical illustration of competing risk analysis85
Single-reviewer abstract screening missed 13 percent of relevant studies: a crowd-based, randomized controlled trial82
Machine learning reduced workload with minimal risk of missing studies: development and evaluation of a randomized controlled trial classifier for Cochrane Reviews76
GRADE Guidelines 30: the GRADE approach to assessing the certainty of modeled evidence—An overview in the context of health decision-making73
Restricting evidence syntheses of interventions to English-language publications is a viable methodological shortcut for most medical topics: a systematic review72
Reporting and methodological quality of COVID-19 systematic reviews needs to be improved: an evidence mapping72
An overview of platform trials with a checklist for clinical readers68
Rapid review methods more challenging during COVID-19: commentary with a focus on 8 knowledge synthesis steps67
Design characteristics and statistical methods used in interrupted time series studies evaluating public health interventions: a review64
Tutorial on directed acyclic graphs61
Cochrane Centralised Search Service showed high sensitivity identifying randomized controlled trials: A retrospective analysis60
An evaluation of Cochrane Crowd found that crowdsourcing produced accurate results in identifying randomized trials60
Clinical prediction models: diagnosis versus prognosis58
Controversy and Debate: Questionable utility of the relative risk in clinical research: Paper 1: A call for change to practice57
Missing data is poorly handled and reported in prediction model studies using machine learning: a literature review56
A systematic review finds Core Outcome Set uptake varies widely across different areas of health53
Methodology over metrics: current scientific standards are a disservice to patients and society52
Evidence-Based Research Series-Paper 1: What Evidence-Based Research is and why is it important?52
Causal analyses of existing databases: no power calculations required51
Penalization and shrinkage methods produced unreliable clinical prediction models especially when sample size was small51
Missing at random assumption made more plausible: evidence from the 1958 British birth cohort51
Reporting guidelines of health research studies are frequently used inappropriately50
Using the full PICO model as a search tool for systematic reviews resulted in lower recall for some PICO elements49
ROC curves for clinical prediction models part 1. ROC plots showed no added value above the AUC when evaluating the performance of clinical prediction models49
External validation of clinical prediction models: simulation-based sample size calculations were more reliable than rules-of-thumb49
Methods for depicting overlap in overviews of systematic reviews: An introduction to static tabular and graphical displays49
0.065258979797363