Journal of Clinical Epidemiology

Papers
(The H4-Index of Journal of Clinical Epidemiology is 48. 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 2020-11-01 to 2024-11-01.)
ArticleCitations
Updating guidance for reporting systematic reviews: development of the PRISMA 2020 statement1247
The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews1197
Cochrane Rapid Reviews Methods Group offers evidence-informed guidance to conduct rapid reviews561
Defining Rapid Reviews: a systematic scoping review and thematic analysis of definitions and defining characteristics of rapid reviews170
Framework for the treatment and reporting of missing data in observational studies: The Treatment And Reporting of Missing data in Observational Studies framework168
Conducting high quality scoping reviews-challenges and solutions140
GRADE guidelines 32: GRADE offers guidance on choosing targets of GRADE certainty of evidence ratings133
Social media can have an impact on how we manage and investigate the COVID-19 pandemic129
Nearly 80 systematic reviews were published each day: Observational study on trends in epidemiology and reporting over the years 2000-2019125
Quality assessment of prevalence studies: a systematic review125
Many researchers were not compliant with their published data sharing statement: a mixed-methods study124
A framework for identifying and mitigating the equity harms of COVID-19 policy interventions116
Machine learning reduced workload with minimal risk of missing studies: development and evaluation of a randomized controlled trial classifier for Cochrane Reviews107
PCORnet® 2020: current state, accomplishments, and future directions107
Restricting evidence syntheses of interventions to English-language publications is a viable methodological shortcut for most medical topics: a systematic review103
Tutorial on directed acyclic graphs102
GRADE Guidelines 30: the GRADE approach to assessing the certainty of modeled evidence—An overview in the context of health decision-making91
Missing data is poorly handled and reported in prediction model studies using machine learning: a literature review90
Clinical prediction models: diagnosis versus prognosis84
Reporting and methodological quality of COVID-19 systematic reviews needs to be improved: an evidence mapping83
An evaluation of Cochrane Crowd found that crowdsourcing produced accurate results in identifying randomized trials77
GRADE Guidance 34: update on rating imprecision using a minimally contextualized approach76
Handling missing data in clinical research76
Controversy and Debate: Questionable utility of the relative risk in clinical research: Paper 1: A call for change to practice75
Cochrane Centralised Search Service showed high sensitivity identifying randomized controlled trials: A retrospective analysis72
Causal analyses of existing databases: no power calculations required66
A systematic review finds Core Outcome Set uptake varies widely across different areas of health65
Evidence-Based Research Series-Paper 1: What Evidence-Based Research is and why is it important?64
Using the full PICO model as a search tool for systematic reviews resulted in lower recall for some PICO elements64
GRADE guidance 24 optimizing the integration of randomized and non-randomized studies of interventions in evidence syntheses and health guidelines63
Reliability of the revised Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for randomised trials (RoB2) improved with the use of implementation instruction62
External validation of clinical prediction models: simulation-based sample size calculations were more reliable than rules-of-thumb60
Methods for depicting overlap in overviews of systematic reviews: An introduction to static tabular and graphical displays60
Penalization and shrinkage methods produced unreliable clinical prediction models especially when sample size was small60
Missing at random assumption made more plausible: evidence from the 1958 British birth cohort57
In a meta-analysis, the I-squared statistic does not tell us how much the effect size varies57
Reporting of prognostic clinical prediction models based on machine learning methods in oncology needs to be improved57
Tools to support the automation of systematic reviews: a scoping review57
A proposed framework to guide evidence synthesis practice for meta-analysis with zero-events studies56
Citation bias and other determinants of citation in biomedical research: findings from six citation networks56
Weekly updates of national living evidence-based guidelines: methods for the Australian living guidelines for care of people with COVID-1956
Methodology over metrics: current scientific standards are a disservice to patients and society56
Key concepts in clinical epidemiology: Responsiveness, the longitudinal aspect of validity53
Believing in black boxes: machine learning for healthcare does not need explainability to be evidence-based52
Adverse drug reaction risks obtained from meta-analyses and pharmacovigilance disproportionality analyses are correlated in most cases51
Two different invitation approaches for consecutive rounds of a Delphi survey led to comparable final outcome50
Minimal important difference estimates for patient-reported outcomes: A systematic survey49
Objectively measured physical activity is associated with frailty in community-dwelling older adults: A systematic review49
Effect estimates of COVID-19 non-pharmaceutical interventions are non-robust and highly model-dependent48
Methods for prospectively incorporating gender into health sciences research48
0.14906001091003