D
David R. Jones
Researcher at University of Leicester
Publications - 45
Citations - 14601
David R. Jones is an academic researcher from University of Leicester. The author has contributed to research in topics: Population & Systematic review. The author has an hindex of 29, co-authored 45 publications receiving 12287 citations. Previous affiliations of David R. Jones include City University London.
Papers
More filters
Journal ArticleDOI
Recommendations for examining and interpreting funnel plot asymmetry in meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials
Jonathan A C Sterne,Alex J. Sutton,John P. A. Ioannidis,Norma Terrin,David R. Jones,Joseph Lau,James R. Carpenter,Gerta Rücker,Roger M. Harbord,Christopher H. Schmid,Jennifer Tetzlaff,Jonathan J Deeks,Jaime Peters,Petra Macaskill,Guido Schwarzer,Sue Duval,Douglas G. Altman,David Moher,Julian P T Higgins +18 more
TL;DR: How to interpret funnel plot asymmetry, recommends appropriate tests, and explains the implications for choice of meta-analysis model are described.
Journal ArticleDOI
Synthesising qualitative and quantitative evidence: A review of possible methods:
TL;DR: An overview and critique of a selection of strategies for synthesising qualitative and quantitative evidence, ranging from techniques that are largely qualitative and interpretive through to techniques that is largely quantitative and integrative.
Journal ArticleDOI
Comparison of Two Methods to Detect Publication Bias in Meta-analysis
TL;DR: The alternative regression test has comparable power to Egger's regression test to detect publication bias under conditions of low between-study heterogeneity.
Journal ArticleDOI
Contour-enhanced meta-analysis funnel plots help distinguish publication bias from other causes of asymmetry
TL;DR: The contour-enhanced funnel plot is proposed as an aid to differentiating asymmetry due to publication bias from that due to other factors and is simple to implement, widely applicable, and greatly improves interpretability.
Journal ArticleDOI
Synthesising qualitative and quantitative evidence: A review of possible methods
TL;DR: A number of procedural, conceptual and theoretical issues need to be addressed in moving forward with this area, and the need for existing techniques to be evaluated and modified, rather than inventing new approaches are emphasised.