• Reporting of adverse events in systematic reviews
• Reporting of clinical prediction model studies in journal and conference abstracts: TRIPOD for Abstracts
• Reporting of Cochrane Systematic Review protocols with network meta-analyses – a scoping review
• Reporting of conflicts of interest in Cochrane reviews of trials of pharmacological treatments
• Reporting of Drug Trial Funding Sources and Author Financial Conflicts of Interest in Cochrane and non-Cochrane Meta-analyses
• Reporting of effect direction and size in abstracts of systematic reviews
• Reporting of eligibility criteria of participants in randomized trials: comparison between study protocols and journal articles
• Reporting of essential items in comparative accuracy studies: A literature review
• Reporting of financial and non-financial conflicts of interest by authors of 200 Cochrane and non-Cochrane systematic reviews: a methodological survey
• Reporting of financial and non-financial conflicts of interest by authors of 200 randomized controlled trials: a methodological survey
• Reporting of financial and non-financial conflicts of interest by authors of health policy and systems systematic reviews: a methodological survey
• Reporting of harm in randomized controlled trials evaluating pharmacological and nonpharmacological treatments
• Reporting of harms in clinical trials: overview of the adherence to CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) Harms 2004
• Reporting of harms in randomized trials of mental health interventions
• Reporting of industry-funded trial outcome data: a comparison of journal publications with confidential individual patient data and clinical study reports
• Reporting of information retrieval in Campbell Systematic Reviews
• Reporting of interim analyses, stopping rules, and data safety and monitoring boards in protocols and publications of discontinued randomized trials
• Reporting of intervention fidelity in systematic reviews of asthma education
• Reporting of interventions: a comparative case study before and after the publication of the extended CONSORT guidelines for reporting non-pharmacological trials
• Reporting of ITT analysis in reproductive studies
• Reporting of meta-analyses and systematic reviews of screening tests in China
• Reporting of missing data and protocol deviation in the description of intention to treat is inconsistent in randomized controlled trials.
• Reporting of non-pharmacological treatment interventions: an extension of the CONSORT statement
• Reporting of outcomes in systematic reviews: comparison of protocols and published systematic reviews
• Reporting of participant flow diagrams in published reports of randomized trials
• Reporting of perinatal mortality and its components in Cochrane reviews: still room for improvement?
• Reporting of randomisation in randomised-controlled trials on traditional Chinese medicine: A comparison of three Chinese medicine journals
• Reporting of randomized clinical trials discontinued due to poor recruitment: a literature review
• Reporting of Risk of Bias 2 (RoB2) in Cochrane protocols and reviews
• Reporting of studies conducted using observational routinely-collected health data (RECORD) framework in clinical research on prognosis for severe Dengue
• Reporting of systematic reviews that synthesize studies of prevalence: Assessment of 1150 reviews using the PRISMA 2009 guideline
• Reporting of the certainty of evidence through GRADE in systematic reviews in dentistry indexed during late 2019 - late 2020
  
• Reporting of the role of the expert searcher in Cochrane reviews
• Reporting of the Search for Studies, the Format of Study Identifiers, and the Format of References in Cochrane Reviews
• Reporting of updating process in updated clinical guidelines: A systematic assessment
• Reporting on heath-related quality of life in Cochrane reviews - a challenge for authors?
• Reporting on the quality of randomised controlled trials in prehospital care
• Reporting quality and its influencing factors in randomized controlled trials of traditional Chinese medicine for cancer
• Reporting quality and risk of bias of systematic reviews of ultraprocessed foods: a methodological study
• Reporting quality appraisal of clinical practice guidelines on gastric cancer
• Reporting quality appraisal of clinical practice guidelines on pancreatic cancer
• Reporting quality evaluation of climate change guidelines with RIGHT checklist
  
• Reporting quality of case series using computer tomography in patients with coronavirus disease 2019
• Reporting quality of continuous quality-improvement studies in the nursing field published in China
• Reporting quality of randomized controlled trials of botanical medicines
• Reporting quality of randomized controlled trials on gastric cancer treated with traditional Chinese medicine published in Chinese journals
• Reporting quality of titles and abstract in retrospective database studies assessing drug effects
• Reporting standard for qualitative research: A good or a bad idea? Preliminary results from a Delphi study
• Reporting standards research on health economic assessment in clinical practice guideline recommendations
  
• Reporting the GRADE approach by systematic reviews of interventions in pediatric dentistry: methodological study
  
• Reporting the Number Needed to Treat (NNT): a systematic review of randomized controlled trials where the outcome is time to an event
• Reporting, dealing with, and judging risk of bias associated with missing participant data in systematic reviews: a methodological survey
• Reporting, dealing with, and judging risk of bias associated with missing participant data in systematic reviews: a methodological survey
• Reporting, handling, and judging risk of bias associated with missing participant data in systematic reviews
• Reporting, presentation and wording of recommendations in clinical practice guidelines
• Reports of controlled trials from EMBASE: an important contribution to The Cochrane Controlled Trials Register
• Reports on animal experiments involving neoplasms in Chinese Journals: adherence to ARRIVE guidelines
• Representation of older adults, women, and ethnic minorities in published randomized trials of drug therapy for type 2 diabetes
• Representation of patients in receipt of disability benefits among trials of therapy for fibromyalgia
• Reproducibility in Systematic Reviews used to Inform Clinical Practice Guidelines
• Reproducibility of Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) factors on the strength of recommendations: an empirical assessment
• Reproducibility of meta-analytic results in systematic reviews of interventions: a meta-research study
  
• Reproducibility of the STARD checklist: an instrument to assess the quality of reporting of diagnostic accuracy studies
• Repurposing Cochrane reviews for a community health information project in Sierra Leone: Malaria prevention
• Requirements of the core clinical journals for authors’ disclosure of financial and non-financial conflicts of interest: a cross sectional study
• Research activities of Evidence-Based Medicine (EBM) in China: a survey of the accepted abstracts of the Eighth Asia-Pacific Conference on EBM
• Research capacity building for Chinese medical practitioners in China: a questionnaire survey
• Research Implications From Cochrane Reviews - what happens to them?
• Research integrity and predatory publishing in evidence reviews: an introduction to the RIPPER Working Group
  
• Research integrity in living guidelines for pregnancy and postnatal care
  
• Research integrity in low- and middle-income countries: Systematic review of prevalence of poor authorship practice, plagiarism and other misconduct
• Research issues in the evaluation and design of interventions to improve outcomes for patients with multimorbidity
• Research methods for systematic review of the burden of disease: a systematic review
  
• RESEARCH NEEDS AND ENGAGEMENT OF REHABILITATION PROFESSIONALS PRACTISING IN AFRICA: PRELIMINARY FINDINGS
  
• Research networks, are they worth the effort? Experiences of establishing and running an evidence-synthesis network in northwest England
• Research on simulation-based training in radiography: a scoping review
  
• Research on the development methodology for clinical practice guidelines for organic integration of traditional Chinese and Western medicine
• Research on the influencing factors and enhancement strategies of public health awareness among college students in the post epidemic era
• Research priority setting exercises: how to reach and address needs of disadvantaged groups
• Research priority setting that inform or use systematic reviews
• Research synthesis priorities and guideline development: Linking evidence synthesis production to evidence needs
• Research synthesis to help going from evidence to decision: a practical application of the GRADE/DECIDE Evidence to Decision Framework
• Research transparency in 59 fields of medical and health sciences: A meta-research study
  
• Research trends and Hotspots analysis of multiple sclerosis diagnosis from 2010 to 2019: a bibliometric analysis
• Research waste caused by symptom-based eligibility: a systematic review of Cochrane reviews and their component trials
• Researcher adherence to data sharing policies of journals
  
• Reserpine for Hypertension
• Residual confounding a criterion for assessing quality of randomized trials
• Resource se compared to evidence of effectiveness as an indirect measure of clinical quality and a basis for improvement
• Resources to improve accessibility of systematic review evidence for decision-makers: a systematic scoping review
• Responses to a systematic review
• Responsible research: trends over time in randomized clinical trials
• Responsiveness: A unique psychometric property to consider in evidence-based practice
• Restricting abstracts of Cochrane Reviews: a pragmatic solution
• Results from an exemplar realist review of advocacy interventions for abused women
• Results from Cochrane’s living systematic review pilot
• Results from RCTs and systematic reviews: to whom do they apply?
• Results in systematic reviews of anaesthesia interventions that are reported as statistically significant often contain risk of type I error greater than 5%
• Results of a Brazilian national program focused on qualifying the national public health system. A case study.
• Results of an online survey evaluating reasons for retrospective trial registration and mechanisms to increase prospective registration compliance
• Results of the pilot mentoring programme for Managing Editors
• Results reporting in clinical trial registries: identifying barriers and facilitators
• Retention policies for health workers in rural and remote areas: an overview of reviews
• Rethinking and contextualizing evidence use for primary health care decision-making at subnational levels in Ghana: perspectives from civil society
  
• Rethinking communication – Integrating storytelling for stakeholder engagement in evidence synthesis
• Rethinking the assessment of risk of bias due to selective reporting: a cross-sectional study
• Rethinking the content of questionnaires when assessing barriers to guideline implementation: a scoping review
• Rethinking Trials of Antibiotics for Acute Respiratory Infections: Taking Account of Recruitment Exclusion of The Most Ill.
• Retrieval bias in the German dental literature
• Retrieving studies for prognosis systematic reviews
• Retrospective case study to test performance of machine learning: results from Cochrane Heart
• Returning peer reviewer comments for Cochrane protocols and reviews via webinars: A pilot project
• Review authors' views of the PRISMA statement
• Review of Cochrane systematic reviews by medical students: Disseminating information of excellence on evidence-based health
• Review of quality-assessment tools in systematic reviews of cost-effectiveness analyses. Are checklists fit for purpose?
• Review or original article? The manuscript category of systematic review and meta-analysis in high-impact biomedical journals
• Reviewing for cost effectiveness model parameters
• Reviewing outside the office: involving women with young children in systematic reviews
• Reviewing psychometric properties of HRQL measures in mental health: Practical experience
• Reviewing systematic reviews: Can technology boost children’s learning? A meta-analysis of What Works Clearinghouse (WWC) early childhood education programmes
• Reviewing the quantity and quality of evidence available to inform NICE diagnostic guidance. Initial results focusing on end-to-end studies and the implications for Cochrane Reviews
• Reviewing the reviews: the evidence base of contemporary medicine is weak
• Reviewing the role of educational outreach visits for type 2 diabetes management in Singapore – a pragmatic approach
• Reviewing the ways in which traditions and gender norms influence migrant men's views and treatment of sexual and reproductive health
  
• Reviews for Africa Programme (RAP): training in the science of research synthesis
• Reviews for Africa Programme: what 3 years of RAPping can do for you!
• Reviews in the area of occupational health and safety literature: results of a four-year pilot
• Reviews in the humanitarian field: adaptation and transparency
• Reviews of effectiveness within a wider world of syntheses of knowledge
• Reviews of parent-child health interventions in public health nursing: a systematic overview
• Reviews with survival from cancer as the primary outcome: writing the protocol
• RevMan 5 for Cochrane Diagnostic test accuracy reviews
• RevMan 5 for Cochrane Intervention review authors - learn to use all the features hands-on.
• RevMan 5 for new and prospective Cochrane authors: learn how to use the software
• RevMan 5 for new and prospective Cochrane authors: learn how to use the software
• RevMan 5 for new and prospective Cochrane Intervention review authors: learn how to use the software
• RevMan 5 presentation for Cochrane Intervention review authors
• RevMan 5.1 for Cochrane intervention review authors: How using all the new features can make life easier
• RevMan 5.2 for Cochrane intervention review authors—how using all the new features can make life easier ***in computer lab; no need for personal laptops
• RevMan 5.3 for experienced Cochrane intervention review authors: learn to use the new features hands-on
• Revolutionizing Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis with Innovative Software Solutions
• RICE or ice: what does the evidence say? The evidence base for first aid treatment of sprains and strains
• Rigorous and relevant systematic reviews: Lessons learned from mixed-methods approaches in international development 
• Rigorous editorial processes assure high quality products at the Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health (CADTH)
• Risk and benefits of pediatric phase I trial in oncology, 2004 through 2014: a systematic review
• Risk assessment of isoflavones in food supplements: a graphical approach to qualitative synthesis
• Risk difference estimation and reporting in systematic reviews
• Risk difference estimation and reporting in systematic reviews
• Risk factors for abstracts falsely excluded during single-reviewer screening – a methods study
• Risk factors for hemodynamic instability after carotid artery stenting : a systematic review and meta-analysis
  
• Risk of Bias 2 in Cochrane Intervention Reviews: update on the pilot and implementation in Cochrane
• Risk of Bias 2 tool: the user's point of view
• Risk of bias and applicability assessments for overall prognosis studies (RoB-OPS): Current development status
• Risk of bias and conflict of interest in clinical trials of infant formula
• Risk of bias and data extraction form for prognosis studies
• Risk of bias and PRISMA compliance in systematic reviews of rare disease
• Risk of bias and reporting quality of randomised controlled trials in paediatric pain: a cross-sectional study
• Risk of bias and reporting quality of randomised controlled trials, systematic reviews and meta-analyses in paediatric surgery: a cross-sectional study
• Risk of bias assessment and comparison of Chilean randomised clinical trials: An analysis by funding source
• Risk of bias assessment in cross-sectional genetic research: the impact of genetic polymorphisms on methadone response
• Risk of bias assessment in systematic review with network meta-analysis: a meta-research study with AMSTAR-2, ROBIS and the ROB-NMA tool
• Risk of bias assessment of sequence generation: a study of 190 systematic reviews of trials
• Risk of bias assessment of studies included in multiple Cochrane Reviews: agreement between different reviews
• Risk of Bias Assessment tool for Non-randomized Studies (RoBANS): Development and validation of a new instrument
• Risk of bias assessment tools used in non-Cochrane reviews of interventions: a meta-epidemiologic study
• Risk of bias in pediatric critical care randomized controlled trials: a systematic review
• Risk of bias in trials of chronic medical conditions. A meta-epidemiologic study
• Risk of bias judgments for blinding of outcome assessors in Cochrane reviews were often inadequate
• Risk of bias of a set of primary studies across systematic reviews showed highly heterogeneous assessments: A methodological analysis within an overview
• Risk of bias of studies published as systematic reviews on nutritional interventions in cancer prevention – a systematic survey
• Risk of bias tool evaluation: process and results
• Risk of bias tool in systematic reviews/meta-analysis on acupuncture in international journals
• Risk of bias tools: a systematic review of usability
• Risk of bias versus quality assessment in systematic reviews: a comparison between ROBIS and AMSTAR
• Risk of bias versus quality: application and recommendations for the Cochrane ‘Risk of bias’ tool
• Risk of bias: are judgements consistent between reviews?
• Risk of serious upper gastrointestinal complications with NSAIDs and COX-2 inhibitors
• Risk of Sleep Disorders Following COVID-19 Infection: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
• Risk Prediction Models for in-hospital Mortality in Acute Aortic Dissection: A Systematic review
• Risk Ratio vs Odds Ratio: Optimal presentation in GRADE evidence profiles
• Risk-of-bias assessment in systematic review with network meta-analysis: a meta-research study with AMSTAR-2, ROBIS, and the ROB-NMA tool
• Risperidone for schizophrenia - a systematic review
• RITES: a new systematic review tool to assess the characteristics of included trials along the efficacy/effectiveness continuum
• ROB-2: A pilot test on the applicability to public health and health systems reviews and impact on GRADE ratings
• ROB-ME: a tool for assessing risk of non-reporting biases in systematic reviews with or without meta-analysis
• ROBIS: a new tool to assess the risk of bias in a systematic review
• RobotAnalyst: An online system to support citation screening in evidence reviewing
• Robotic research meets professional craft: Meta-ethnography exploring influences on school-based evidence-informed decision making for health, wellbeing or educational improvement
• RobotReviewer: a tool for automating evidence synthesis — development and evaluation to date, and future plans
• ROC analysis of prediction for gastric cancer development using serum pepsinogen and Helicobacter pylori antibody tests
• Role of Cochrane reviews in informing US private payers’ medical policies
• Role of Cochrane systematic reviews in health technology assessment in Argentina
• Role of sodium intake in blood pressure, mortality, and cardiovascular disease outcomes: an umbrella review
• Role of staff involvement in health and safety measures in disaster risk-reduction strategy in selected Kenyan horticulture research institutions
• Roles of contributors, panel composition, and policies for authorship in practice guideline development: a survey of guidance documents
• Room for a (Southern) view: bringing Southern theories into evidence synthesis to address inequities in perspectives
  
• Room for improvement: how to validate your MEDLINE search before using it in the update
• Rotavirus vaccine for Indian children: can latest evidence modify policy guidelines in India?
• Rotavirus vaccines: a comparison of Brazilian healthcare policy and evidence from a Cochrane review
• Routine Health Information System (RHIS) interventions to improve health systems management: An EPOC- Cochrane effectiveness systematic review