Petra Macaskill
Impact in
- Cancer Research top 0.5%
- Breast Cancer Treatment Studies
-
- Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
Papers in
-
- Meta-analysis and systematic reviews 15
- Reliability and Agreement in Measurement 8
-
- Statistical Methods in Clinical Trials 13
- Co-authors
- Les Irwig (67 shared papers)Jonathan J Deeks (4 shared papers)Nehmat Houssami (35 shared papers)Douglas G. Altman (5 shared papers)John P. A. Ioannidis (2 shared papers)Michael Luke Marinovich (14 shared papers)Andrew Julian Vickers (4 shared papers)David F. Ransohoff (4 shared papers)
- Journals
- Journal of Clinical Epidemiology (10 papers)Statistics in Medicine (7 papers)The Breast (7 papers)Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (5 papers)BMJ (4 papers)
- Partner nations
- AustraliaUnited StatesItaly
In The Last Decade
Petra Macaskill
173 papers receiving 29.7k citations
Petra Macaskill's Hit Papers
Peers
Comparison fields: 5 of 214
- Cancer Research 2.9k
- Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty 1.1k
- Pathology and Forensic Medicine 2.3k
- Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging 2.8k
- Oncology 3.2k
Countries citing papers authored by Petra Macaskill
This map shows the geographic impact of Petra Macaskill's research. It shows the number of citations coming from papers published by authors working in each country. You can also color the map by specialization and compare the number of citations received by Petra Macaskill with the expected number of citations based on a country's size and research output (numbers larger than one mean the country cites Petra Macaskill more than expected).
Fields of papers citing papers by Petra Macaskill
This network shows the impact of papers produced by Petra Macaskill. Nodes represent research fields, and links connect fields that are likely to share authors. Colored nodes show fields that tend to cite the papers produced by Petra Macaskill. The network helps show where Petra Macaskill may publish in the future.
Co-authors
The 25 scholars most cited alongside Petra Macaskill, linked wherever they have co-authored with each other. Click a name or a connecting line to browse the papers they share.
All Works
Showing the 20 most-cited of 173 papers — load more, or switch the sort, to bring in the rest.
| # | Work | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Recommendations for examining and interpreting funnel plot asymmetry in meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials Hit paper breakdown → | 2011 | 5956 |
| 2 | Transparent Reporting of a multivariable prediction model for Individual Prognosis Or Diagnosis (TRIPOD): Explanation and Elaboration Hit paper breakdown → | 2015 | 3731 |
| 3 | Preferred Reporting Items for a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Diagnostic Test Accuracy Studies Hit paper breakdown → | 2018 | 2458 |
| 4 | The performance of tests of publication bias and other sample size effects in systematic reviews of diagnostic test accuracy was assessed Hit paper breakdown → | 2005 | 2441 |
| 5 | A comparison of methods to detect publication bias in meta‐analysis Hit paper breakdown → | 2001 | 980 |
| 6 | Dermoscopy compared with naked eye examination for the diagnosis of primary melanoma: a meta-analysis of studies performed in a clinical setting Hit paper breakdown → | 2008 | 694 |
| 7 | Integration of 3D digital mammography with tomosynthesis for population breast-cancer screening (STORM): a prospective comparison study Hit paper breakdown → | 2013 | 677 |
| 8 | Accuracy and Surgical Impact of Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Breast Cancer Staging: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis in Detection of Multifocal and Multicentric Cancer Hit paper breakdown → | 2008 | 656 |
| 9 | Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical Hit paper breakdown → | 1998 | 616 |
| 10 | Meta-analysis of Pap Test Accuracy Hit paper breakdown → | 1995 | 554 |
| 11 | Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis of diagnostic test accuracy studies (PRISMA-DTA): explanation, elaboration, and checklist Hit paper breakdown → | 2020 | 525 |
| 12 | 2012 | 429 | |
| 13 | 1995 | 417 | |
| 14 | 2014 | 401 | |
| 15 | 2010 | 326 | |
| 16 | 2011 | 314 | |
| 17 | 2013 | 299 | |
| 18 | 2010 | 295 | |
| 19 | 2009 | 293 | |
| 20 | 2011 | 274 |
About Petra Macaskill
Petra Macaskill is a scholar working on Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty, Statistics and Probability, Cancer Research, Oncology and Pathology and Forensic Medicine, having authored 173 papers that have together received 30.6k indexed citations. Recurring topics across this work include Breast Cancer Treatment Studies (17 papers), Meta-analysis and systematic reviews (15 papers), Health Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life (13 papers), Statistical Methods in Clinical Trials (13 papers), Digital Radiography and Breast Imaging (12 papers), Colorectal Cancer Screening and Detection (12 papers), Reliability and Agreement in Measurement (8 papers) and Global Cancer Incidence and Screening (7 papers). The work is most often cited by research in Cancer Research (2.9k citations), Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty (1.1k citations), Pathology and Forensic Medicine (2.3k citations), Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging (2.8k citations) and Oncology (3.2k citations). Petra Macaskill has collaborated with scholars based in Australia, United States and Italy. Frequent co-authors include Les Irwig, Jonathan J Deeks, Nehmat Houssami, Douglas G. Altman, John P. A. Ioannidis, Michael Luke Marinovich, Andrew Julian Vickers, David F. Ransohoff, Johannes B. Reitsma and Karel G.M. Moons. Their work appears in journals such as Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, Statistics in Medicine, The Breast, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and BMJ.
Rankless uses publication and citation data sourced from OpenAlex, an open and comprehensive bibliographic database. While OpenAlex provides broad and valuable coverage of the global research landscape, it—like all bibliographic datasets—has inherent limitations. These include incomplete records, variations in author disambiguation, differences in journal indexing, and delays in data updates. As a result, some metrics and network relationships displayed in Rankless may not fully capture the entirety of a scholar's output or impact.