P
Peter W. Jones
Researcher at Keele University
Publications - 327
Citations - 19716
Peter W. Jones is an academic researcher from Keele University. The author has contributed to research in topics: Population & Genotype. The author has an hindex of 76, co-authored 324 publications receiving 18761 citations. Previous affiliations of Peter W. Jones include University Hospital of Wales & University of Birmingham.
Papers
More filters
Journal ArticleDOI
A randomised controlled trial of laser scanning and casting for the construction of ankle–foot orthoses
TL;DR: Compared with conventional casting techniques, laser scan–based ankle–foot orthosis manufacture did not significantly improve either the quality of the final product or the time to delivery.
Journal ArticleDOI
The Problem of Conversion in Method Comparison Studies
TL;DR: In this paper, an approach based on the theory of structural relationship models is presented to compare two approximate methods of measuring the fuel consumption of motor vehicles, where the data sets need to be converted to the same units before comparisons may take place.
Journal ArticleDOI
Combined influence of gene-specific cord blood methylation and maternal smoking habit on birth weight
Kim E. Haworth,William E. Farrell,Richard D. Emes,Khaled M K Ismail,Will Carroll,Hazel-Ann D Borthwick,Alexandra M Yates,Emma Hubball,Angela Rooney,Mazeda Khanam,Neyha Aggarwal,Peter W. Jones,Anthony A. Fryer +12 more
TL;DR: The data suggest that gene-specific methylation of cord DNA is associated with BWP and this methylation provides an additional effect on BWP to that of smoking during pregnancy.
Additional file 1: of Managing diabetes in people with dementia: protocol for a realist review
Frances Bunn,Claire Goodman,Jo Rycroft Malone,Peter W. Jones,Christopher R Burton,Greta Rait,Daksha Trivedi,Antony James Bayer,Alan J. Sinclair +8 more
Journal ArticleDOI
Suggestions in maternal and child health for the National Technology Assessment Programme: a consideration of consumer and professional priorities
TL;DR: Overall the process suggests that democratic prioritisation is a viable option and one that may become essential within the framework of clinical and research governance.