FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W4238455831> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W4238455831 endingPage "289" @default.
• W4238455831 startingPage "285" @default.
• W4238455831 abstract "Free Access References Book Editor(s):Richard D. Riley, Keele University, Keele, UKSearch for more papers by this authorJayne F. Tierney, MRC Clinical Trials Unit at UCL, London, UKSearch for more papers by this authorLesley A. Stewart, University of York, York, UKSearch for more papers by this author First published: 22 April 2021 https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119333784.refs3 AboutPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onEmailFacebookTwitterLinked InRedditWechat References Simes RJ. Publication bias: the case for an international registry of clinical trials. J Clin Oncol 1986; 4(10): 1529– 1541. CrossrefCASPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar Sterne JA, Egger M, Smith GD. Systematic reviews in health care: investigating and dealing with publication and other biases in meta-analysis. BMJ 2001; 323(7304): 101– 105. CrossrefCASPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar Sutton AJ, Duval SJ, Tweedie RL, et al. Empirical assessment of effect of publication bias on meta-analyses. BMJ 2000; 320(7249): 1574– 1577. CrossrefCASPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar Rothstein HR, Sutton AJ, Borenstein ME. Publication Bias in Meta-analysis. Chichester, UK: Wiley 2005. Wiley Online LibraryGoogle Scholar Turner EH, Matthews AM, Linardatos E, et al. Selective publication of antidepressant trials and its influence on apparent efficacy. N Engl J Med 2008; 358(3): 252– 260. CrossrefCASPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar Smith R. What is publication? A continuum. BMJ 1999; 318: 142. CrossrefCASPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar Ioannidis JPA. Effect of the statistical significance of results on the time to completion and publication of randomized efficacy trials. JAMA 1998; 279: 281– 286. CrossrefCASPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar Clarke M, Stewart LA. Time lag bias in publishing clinical trials (letter). JAMA 1998; 279: 1952– 1953. CrossrefCASPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar Stewart L, Tierney J, Burdett S. Do systematic reviews based on individual patient data offer a means of circumventing biases associated with trial publications? In: HR Rothstein, AJ Sutton, M Borenstein, eds. Publication Bias in Meta-Analysis: Prevention, Assessment and Adjustments. Chichester, UK: Wiley 2006. Wiley Online LibraryGoogle Scholar Stewart LA, Tierney JF. To IPD or not to IPD? Advantages and disadvantages of systematic reviews using individual patient data. Eval Health Prof 2002; 25(1): 76– 97. CrossrefPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar Riley RD, Lambert PC, Abo-Zaid G. Meta-analysis of individual participant data: rationale, conduct, and reporting. BMJ 2010; 340: c221. CrossrefPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar Riley RD. Commentary: like it and lump it? Meta-analysis using individual participant data. Int J Epidemiol 2010; 39(5): 1359– 1361. CrossrefPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar Burdett S, Stewart LA, Tierney JF. Publication bias and meta-analyses: a practical example. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2003; 19(1): 129– 134. CrossrefPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar Egger M, Davey Smith G, Schneider M, et al. Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test. BMJ 1997; 315(7109): 629– 634. CrossrefCASPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar Sterne JAC, Sutton AJ, Ioannidis JPA, et al. Recommendations for examining and interpreting funnel plot asymmetry in meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials. BMJ 2011; 342: d4002. CrossrefWeb of Science®Google Scholar Moreno SG, Sutton AJ, Turner EH, et al. Novel methods to deal with publication biases: secondary analysis of antidepressant trials in the FDA trial registry database and related journal publications. BMJ 2009; 339: b2981. CrossrefPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar Peters JL, Sutton AJ, Jones DR, et al. Contour-enhanced meta-analysis funnel plots help distinguish publication bias from other causes of asymmetry. J Clin Epidemiol 2008; 61: 991– 996. CrossrefPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar Sterne JA, Gavaghan D, Egger M. Publication and related bias in meta-analysis: power of statistical tests and prevalence in the literature. J Clin Epidemiol 2000; 53(11): 1119– 1129. CrossrefCASPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar Ahmed I, Sutton AJ, Riley RD. Assessment of publication bias, selection bias and unavailable data in meta-analyses using individual participant data: a database survey. BMJ 2012; 344: d7762. CrossrefPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar Duval S, Tweedie R. Trim and fill: A simple funnel-plot-based method of testing and adjusting for publication bias in meta-analysis. Biometrics 2000; 56(2): 455– 463. Wiley Online LibraryCASPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar DeLuca G, Gibson CM, Bellandi F, et al. Early glycoprotein IIb-IIIa inhibitors in primary angioplasty (EGYPT) cooperation: an individual patient data meta-analysis. Heart 2008; 94(12): 1548– 1558. CrossrefCASPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar Moreno SG, Sutton AJ, Ades AE, et al. Assessment of regression-based methods to adjust for publication bias through a comprehensive simulation study. BMC Med Res Methodol 2009; 9: 2. CrossrefPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar Terrin N, Schmid CH, Lau J, et al. Adjusting for publication bias in the presence of heterogeneity. Stat Med 2003; 22(13): 2113– 2126. Wiley Online LibraryCASPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar Martineau AR, Jolliffe DA, Hooper RL, et al. Vitamin D supplementation to prevent acute respiratory tract infections: systematic review and meta-analysis of individual participant data. BMJ 2017; 356: i6583. CrossrefPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar Holmes MV. Rapid response to: Vitamin D supplementation to prevent acute respiratory tract infections: systematic review and meta-analysis of individual participant data. BMJ 2017; 356: i6583. PubMedGoogle Scholar Riley RD, Simmonds MC, Look MP. Evidence synthesis combining individual patient data and aggregate data: a systematic review identified current practice and possible methods. J Clin Epidemiol 2007; 60(5): 431– 439. CrossrefPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar Nevitt SJ, Marson AG, Davie B, et al. Exploring changes over time and characteristics associated with data retrieval across individual participant data meta-analyses: systematic review. BMJ 2017; 357: j1390. CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar Tsujimoto Y, Fujii T, Onishi A, et al. No consistent evidence of data availability bias existed in recent individual participant data meta-analyses: a meta-epidemiological study. J Clin Epidemiol 2020; 118: 107– 114.e5. CrossrefPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar Vale C, Tierney JF, Stewart LA, et al. Reducing uncertainties about the effects of chemoradiotherapy for cervical cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis of individual patient data from 18 randomized trials. J Clin Oncol 2008; 26(35): 5802– 5812. CrossrefCASPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar Riley RD, Lambert PC, Staessen JA, et al. Meta-analysis of continuous outcomes combining individual patient data and aggregate data. Stat Med 2008; 27(11): 1870– 1893. Wiley Online LibraryPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar Sutton AJ, Kendrick D, Coupland CA. Meta-analysis of individual- and aggregate-level data. Stat Med 2008; 27: 651– 669. Wiley Online LibraryCASPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar McCormack K, Scott N, Grant A. Are trials with individual patient data available different from trials without individual patient data available? 9th Annual Cochrane Colloquium Abstracts , Lyon, France, 2001. Google Scholar Greb A, Bohlius J, Schiefer D, et al. High-dose chemotherapy with autologous stem cell transplantation in the first line treatment of aggressive non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) in adults. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2008(1): CD004024. PubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar Sterne JAC, Savovic J, Page MJ, et al. RoB 2: a revised tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ 2019; 366: l4898. CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar Rogozinska E, Marlin N, Jackson L, et al. Effects of antenatal diet and physical activity on maternal and fetal outcomes: individual patient data meta-analysis and health economic evaluation. Health Technol Assess 2017; 21(41): 1– 158. CrossrefPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar White IR, Higgins JP, Wood AM. Allowing for uncertainty due to missing data in meta-analysis – part 1: two-stage methods. Stat Med 2008; 27(5): 711– 727. Wiley Online LibraryPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar Bell ML, Kenward MG, Fairclough DL, et al. Differential dropout and bias in randomised controlled trials: when it matters and when it may not. BMJ 2013; 346: e8668. CrossrefPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar Clarke MJ, Stewart LA. Obtaining data from randomised controlled trials: how much do we need for reliable and informative meta-analyses?. In: I Chalmers, DG Altman, eds. Systematic Reviews. London, UK: BMJ Publishing 1995: 37– 47. Google Scholar Kirkham JJ, Dwan KM, Altman DG, et al. The impact of outcome reporting bias in randomised controlled trials on a cohort of systematic reviews. BMJ 2010; 340: c365. CrossrefPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar McCormack K, Grant A, Scott N. Value of updating a systematic review in surgery using individual patient data. Br J Surg 2004; 91(4): 495– 499. Wiley Online LibraryCASPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar Riley RD, Price MJ, Jackson D, et al. Multivariate meta-analysis using individual participant data. Res Synth Method 2015; 6: 157– 174. Wiley Online LibraryCASPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar Kirkham JJ, Riley RD, Williamson PR. A multivariate meta-analysis approach for reducing the impact of outcome reporting bias in systematic reviews. Stat Med 2012; 31(20): 2179– 2195. Wiley Online LibraryPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar Stewart LA, Clarke M, Rovers M, et al. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses of individual participant data: the PRISMA-IPD Statement. JAMA 2015; 313(16): 1657– 1665. CrossrefPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar Vale CL, Rydzewska LH, Rovers MM, et al. Uptake of systematic reviews and meta-analyses based on individual participant data in clinical practice guidelines: descriptive study. BMJ 2015; 350: h1088. CrossrefPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar Hutton B, Salanti G, Caldwell DM, et al. The PRISMA extension statement for reporting of systematic reviews incorporating network meta-analyses of health care interventions: checklist and explanations. Ann Intern Med 2015; 162(11): 777– 784. CrossrefPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar Cohen JF, Korevaar DA, Altman DG, et al. STARD 2015 guidelines for reporting diagnostic accuracy studies: explanation and elaboration. BMJ Open 2016; 6(11): e012799. CrossrefPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar McShane LM, Altman DG, Sauerbrei W, et al. Reporting recommendations for tumor marker prognostic studies (REMARK). J Natl Cancer Inst 2005; 97(16): 1180– 1184. CrossrefCASPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar Collins GS, Reitsma JB, Altman DG, et al. Transparent reporting of a multivariable prediction model for individual prognosis or diagnosis (TRIPOD): the TRIPOD statement. BMJ 2015; 350: g7594. CrossrefPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, et al. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. BMJ 2009; 339: b2535. CrossrefPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, et al. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate healthcare interventions: explanation and elaboration. BMJ 2009; 339: b2700. CrossrefPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar Simmonds M, Stewart G, Stewart L. A decade of individual participant data meta-analyses: a review of current practice. Contemp Clin Trials 2015; 45(Pt A): 76– 83. CrossrefPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Vist GE, et al. GRADE: an emerging consensus on rating quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. BMJ 2008; 336(7650): 924– 926. CrossrefPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar Guyatt G, Oxman AD, Akl EA, et al. GRADE guidelines: 1. Introduction – GRADE evidence profiles and summary of findings tables. J Clin Epidemiol 2011; 64(4): 383– 394. CrossrefPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar Phillips RS, Sung L, Ammann RA, et al. Predicting microbiologically defined infection in febrile neutropenic episodes in children: global individual participant data multivariable meta-analysis. Br J Cancer 2016; 114(12): e17. CrossrefPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar Kent DM, van Klaveren D, Paulus JK, et al. The Predictive Approaches to Treatment effect Heterogeneity (PATH) statement: explanation and elaboration. Ann Intern Med 2020; 172(1): W1– W25. CrossrefPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar Kent DM, Paulus JK, van Klaveren D, et al. The Predictive Approaches to Treatment effect Heterogeneity (PATH) statement. Ann Intern Med 2019; 172(1): 35– 45. CrossrefPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar Kent DM, Nelson J, Dahabreh IJ, et al. Risk and treatment effect heterogeneity: re-analysis of individual participant data from 32 large clinical trials. Int J Epidemiol 2016; 45(6): 2075– 2088. PubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar Kent DM, Nelson J, Altman DG, et al. Treatment effect heterogeneity in clinical trials: an evaluation of 13 large clinical trials using individual patient data. Value Health 2014; 17(7): A543– A544. CrossrefCASPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar Kent DM, Steyerberg E, van Klaveren D. Personalized evidence based medicine: predictive approaches to heterogeneous treatment effects. BMJ 2018; 363: k4245. CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar Riley RD, Ensor J, Jackson D, et al. Deriving percentage study weights in multi-parameter meta-analysis models: with application to meta-regression, network meta-analysis and one-stage individual participant data models. Stat Methods Med Res 2018; 27(10): 2885– 2905. CrossrefPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar Harris R, Bradburn M, Deeks J, et al. metan: fixed- and random-effects meta-analysis. Stata Journal 2008; 8(1): 3– 28. CrossrefWeb of Science®Google Scholar Burke DL, Ensor J, Snell KIE, et al. Guidance for deriving and presenting percentage study weights in meta-analysis of test accuracy studies. Res Synth Methods 2018; 9(2): 163– 178. Wiley Online LibraryPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar RD Riley, D Windt, P Croft, et al., editors. Prognosis Research in Healthcare: Concepts, Methods and Impact. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 2019. CrossrefGoogle Scholar Hingorani AD, Windt DA, Riley RD, et al. Prognosis research strategy (PROGRESS) 4: stratified medicine research. BMJ 2013; 346: e5793. CrossrefPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Vist G, et al. GRADE guidelines: 4. Rating the quality of evidence – study limitations (risk of bias). J Clin Epidemiol 2011; 64(4): 407– 415. CrossrefPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar Grimshaw JM, Eccles MP, Lavis JN, et al. Knowledge translation of research findings. Implementation Science 2012; 7(1): 50. CrossrefPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar Straus S, Tetroe J, Graham ID. Knowledge Translation in Health Care: Moving from Evidence to Practice. West Sussex, UK: Wiley 2013. Wiley Online LibraryWeb of Science®Google Scholar https://www.nihr.ac.uk/documents/knowledge-mobilisation-research/22598 Google Scholar Simmonds MC, Brown JV, Heirs MK, et al. Safety and effectiveness of recombinant human bone morphogenetic protein-2 for spinal fusion: a meta-analysis of individual-participant data. Ann Intern Med 2013; 158(12): 877– 889. CrossrefPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar Stewart LA, Clarke MJ. Practical methodology of meta-analyses (overviews) using updated individual patient data. Cochrane Working Group. Stat Med 1995; 14(19): 2057– 2079. Wiley Online LibraryCASGoogle Scholar Tierney JF, Stewart LA, Clarke M. Individual participant data. In: JPT Higgins, TJ Chandler, M Cumpston, et al., eds. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. London, UK: Cochrane 2019. Wiley Online LibraryGoogle Scholar Duchateau L, Pignon JP, Bijnens L, et al. Individual patient- versus literature-based meta-analysis of survival data: time to event and event rate at a particular time can make a difference, an example based on head and neck cancer. Control Clin Trials 2001; 22(5): 538– 547. CrossrefCASPubMedGoogle Scholar Stewart LA, Parmar MK. Meta-analysis of the literature or of individual patient data: is there a difference? Lancet 1993; 341: 418– 422. CrossrefCASPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar Jeng GT, Scott JR, Burmeister LF. A comparison of meta-analytic results using literature vs individual patient data: paternal cell immunization for recurrent miscarriage. JAMA 1995; 274(10): 830– 836. CrossrefCASPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar EU Hernia Trialists Collaboration. Value of updating a systematic review in surgery using individual patient data. Br J Surgery 2004; 91: 495– 499. Wiley Online LibraryPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar Tudur Smith C, Marcucci M, Nolan SJ, et al. Individual participant data meta-analyses compared with meta-analyses based on aggregate data. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2016; 9: MR000007. PubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar Tierney JF, Fisher DJ, Burdett S, et al. Comparison of aggregate and individual participant data approaches to meta-analysis of randomised trials: an observational study. PLoS Med 2020; 17(1): e1003019. CrossrefPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar Tierney JF, Pignon J-P, Gueffyier F, et al. How individual participant data meta-analyses can influence trial design and conduct. J Clin Epidemiol 2015; 68(11): 1325– 1335. CrossrefPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar Tierney JF, Vale C, Riley R, et al. Individual participant data (IPD) meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials: guidance on their use. PLoS Med 2015; 12(7): e1001855. CrossrefPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar NSCLC Meta-analysis Collaborative Group. Preoperative chemotherapy for non-small cell lung cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis of individual participant data. Lancet 2014; 383: 1561– 1571. CrossrefCASPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar Booth A, Clarke M, Ghersi D, et al. An international registry of systematic-review protocols. Lancet 2011; 377(9760): 108– 109. CrossrefPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar Lefebvre C, Glanville J, Briscoe S, et al. Chapter 4: Searching for and selecting studies. In: JPT Higgins, J Thomas, J Chandler, et al., eds. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions version 60 (updated July 2019) (Available from www.training.cochrane.org/handbook): Cochrane, 2019. Wiley Online LibraryGoogle Scholar Dickersin K. Publication bias: recognising the problem, understanding its origins and scope, and preventing harm. In: H Rothstein, A Sutton, M Borenstein, eds. Publication Bias in Meta-Analysis: Prevention, Assessment and Adjustments. Chichester, UK: Wiley 2005: 261– 286. Wiley Online LibraryGoogle Scholar Stewart L, Tierney J, Burdett S. Do systematic reviews based on individual patient data offer a means of circumventing biases associated with trial publications? In: H Rothstein, A Sutton, M Borenstein, eds. Publication Bias in Meta-Analysis: Prevention, Assessment and Adjustments. Chichester, UK: Wiley 2005: 261– 286. Wiley Online LibraryGoogle Scholar Higgins JPT, Altman DG, on behalf of the Cochrane Statistical Methods Group and the Cochrane Bias Methods Group. Assessing risk of bias in included studies. In: JPT Higgins, S Green, eds. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Chichester, UK: Wiley 2008: 187– 241. Wiley Online LibraryPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar Altman DG. Randomisation. BMJ 1991; 302: 1481– 1482. CrossrefCASPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar Lachin JM. Statistical considerations in the intent-to-treat principle. Contr Clin Trials 2000; 21: 167– 189. CrossrefCASPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar Schulz KF, Grimes DA. Sample size slippages in randomised trials: exclusions and the lost and wayward. Lancet 2002; 359: 781– 785. CrossrefPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar Juni P, Altman DG, Egger M. Systematic reviews in health care: assessing the quality of controlled clinical trials. BMJ 2001; 323(7303): 42– 46. CrossrefCASPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar Tierney JF, Stewart LA. Investigating patient exclusion bias in meta-analysis. Int J Epidemiol 2005; 34(1): 79– 87. CrossrefPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar Abo-Zaid G, Guo B, Deeks JJ, et al. Individual participant data meta-analyses should not ignore clustering. J Clin Epidemiol 2013; 66(8): 865– 873 e4. CrossrefPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar Burke DL, Ensor J, Riley RD. Meta-analysis using individual participant data: one-stage and two-stage approaches, and why they may differ. Stat Med 2017; 36(5): 855– 875. Wiley Online LibraryPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar Stewart GB, Altman DG, Askie LM, et al. Statistical analysis of individual participant data meta-analyses: a comparison of methods and recommendations for practice. PLoS One 2012; 7(10): e46042. CrossrefCASPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar Deeks JJ, Higgins JP, Altman DG. Analysing data and undertaking meta-analyses. In: JP Higgins, S Green, eds. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Chichester, UK: Wiley 2008. Wiley Online LibraryGoogle Scholar Riley RD, Debray TPA, Fisher D, et al. Individual participant data meta-analysis to examine interactions between treatment effect and participant-level covariates: statistical recommendations for conduct and planning. Stat Med 2020; 39(15): 2115– 2137. Wiley Online LibraryPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar Fisher DJ, Carpenter JR, Morris TP, et al. Meta-analytical methods to identify who benefits most from treatments: daft, deluded, or deft approach? BMJ 2017; 356: j573. CrossrefPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar Fisher DJ, Copas AJ, Tierney JF, et al. A critical review of methods for the assessment of patient-level interactions in individual participant data meta-analysis of randomized trials, and guidance for practitioners. J Clin Epidemiol 2011; 64(9): 949– 967. CrossrefCASPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar Individual Participant Data Meta‐Analysis: A Handbook for Healthcare Research ReferencesRelatedInformation" @default.
• W4238455831 created "2022-05-12" @default.
• W4238455831 date "2021-04-22" @default.
• W4238455831 modified "2023-09-26" @default.
• W4238455831 title "References" @default.
• W4238455831 cites W1490605517 @default.
• W4238455831 cites W1520193620 @default.
• W4238455831 cites W1554040650 @default.
• W4238455831 cites W1590137713 @default.
• W4238455831 cites W1595237219 @default.
• W4238455831 cites W1596902544 @default.
• W4238455831 cites W1617328014 @default.
• W4238455831 cites W1759102092 @default.
• W4238455831 cites W1887056411 @default.
• W4238455831 cites W1923600032 @default.
• W4238455831 cites W1970128129 @default.
• W4238455831 cites W1981680557 @default.
• W4238455831 cites W1983241227 @default.
• W4238455831 cites W1996761484 @default.
• W4238455831 cites W1996932065 @default.
• W4238455831 cites W2000297407 @default.
• W4238455831 cites W2000831392 @default.
• W4238455831 cites W2021970054 @default.
• W4238455831 cites W2028580447 @default.
• W4238455831 cites W2028758832 @default.
• W4238455831 cites W2033585778 @default.
• W4238455831 cites W2033890227 @default.
• W4238455831 cites W204046373 @default.
• W4238455831 cites W2040766195 @default.
• W4238455831 cites W2042304363 @default.
• W4238455831 cites W2043241676 @default.
• W4238455831 cites W2043349008 @default.
• W4238455831 cites W2046391772 @default.
• W4238455831 cites W2049192772 @default.
• W4238455831 cites W2050118439 @default.
• W4238455831 cites W2063185787 @default.
• W4238455831 cites W2077421021 @default.
• W4238455831 cites W2088783942 @default.
• W4238455831 cites W2091996752 @default.
• W4238455831 cites W2096910745 @default.
• W4238455831 cites W2103718021 @default.
• W4238455831 cites W2104675861 @default.
• W4238455831 cites W2110032017 @default.
• W4238455831 cites W2110376701 @default.
• W4238455831 cites W2110476643 @default.
• W4238455831 cites W2115086661 @default.
• W4238455831 cites W2116153150 @default.
• W4238455831 cites W2119605658 @default.
• W4238455831 cites W2120959053 @default.
• W4238455831 cites W2134431449 @default.
• W4238455831 cites W2134833483 @default.
• W4238455831 cites W2136698781 @default.
• W4238455831 cites W2137670391 @default.
• W4238455831 cites W2137745476 @default.
• W4238455831 cites W2144034723 @default.
• W4238455831 cites W2146962227 @default.
• W4238455831 cites W2150683078 @default.
• W4238455831 cites W2152096996 @default.
• W4238455831 cites W2152951833 @default.
• W4238455831 cites W2156098321 @default.
• W4238455831 cites W2157823046 @default.
• W4238455831 cites W2159404520 @default.
• W4238455831 cites W2161459327 @default.
• W4238455831 cites W2165010366 @default.
• W4238455831 cites W2165762701 @default.
• W4238455831 cites W2168718800 @default.
• W4238455831 cites W2182482244 @default.
• W4238455831 cites W2314555171 @default.
• W4238455831 cites W2477671038 @default.
• W4238455831 cites W2480089904 @default.
• W4238455831 cites W2533466707 @default.
• W4238455831 cites W2554140915 @default.
• W4238455831 cites W2586588898 @default.
• W4238455831 cites W2588906490 @default.
• W4238455831 cites W2593708391 @default.
• W4238455831 cites W2604378711 @default.
• W4238455831 cites W2744340589 @default.
• W4238455831 cites W2767383625 @default.
• W4238455831 cites W2904040183 @default.
• W4238455831 cites W2970684805 @default.
• W4238455831 cites W2974463546 @default.
• W4238455831 cites W2974858420 @default.
• W4238455831 cites W2982131198 @default.
• W4238455831 cites W2984947744 @default.
• W4238455831 cites W2986844826 @default.
• W4238455831 cites W2991792334 @default.
• W4238455831 cites W3003392869 @default.
• W4238455831 cites W3021476651 @default.
• W4238455831 cites W4231022262 @default.
• W4238455831 cites W4233026002 @default.
• W4238455831 cites W4242807082 @default.
• W4238455831 cites W4248949215 @default.
• W4238455831 cites W93604404 @default.
• W4238455831 doi "https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119333784.refs3" @default.
• W4238455831 hasPublicationYear "2021" @default.
• W4238455831 type Work @default.
• W4238455831 citedByCount "0" @default.
• W4238455831 crossrefType "other" @default.

• next