Comments on ‘Empirical vs natural weighting in random effects meta-analysis’ by JJ Shuster, Statistics in Medicine 2009; 26 , Published online, DOI: 10.1002/sim.3607
Abstract
Statistics in MedicineVolume 29, Issue 28 p. 2963-2965 Letter to the Editor Comments on ‘Empirical vs natural weighting in random effects meta-analysis’ by JJ Shuster, Statistics in Medicine 2009; 26, Published online, DOI: 10.1002/sim.3607 Gerta Rücker, Gerta Rücker Institute of Medical Biometry and Medical Informatics, Department of Medical Biometry and Statistics, University Medical Center Freiburg, Stefan-Meier Strasse 26, Freiburg 79104,...
Paper Details
Title
Comments on ‘Empirical vs natural weighting in random effects meta-analysis’ by JJ Shuster, Statistics in Medicine 2009; 26 , Published online, DOI: 10.1002/sim.3607
Published Date
Nov 23, 2010
Journal
Volume
29
Issue
28
Pages
2963 - 2965
Citation AnalysisPro
You’ll need to upgrade your plan to Pro
Looking to understand the true influence of a researcher’s work across journals & affiliations?
- Scinapse’s Top 10 Citation Journals & Affiliations graph reveals the quality and authenticity of citations received by a paper.
- Discover whether citations have been inflated due to self-citations, or if citations include institutional bias.
Notes
History