• Applying the Updating Classification System to Cochrane Reviews
• Appraisal of search strategies in industry submissions for technology appraisal (ASSIST): Reviewing search methods of industry submissions to NICE using a structured checklist
• Appraising the quality of evidence in age estimation studies: a systematic review
• Approach and lessons learned from a priority-setting exercise conducted by the Cochrane Breast Cancer Group
• Approaches to applicability in the recent literature
• Approaches to estimate and present baseline risks: Recommendations for Cochrane reviews ’Summary of findings' tables
• Approaches to interim analysis of randomized clinical trials in cancer: a survey from the Italian National Monitoring Centre for Clinical Trials
• Approaches to optimise review research recommendations when evidence is very limited: going beyond “high quality studies are needed”
• Approaches to prioritisation: the Cochrane Airways Group experience
• Approaches to risk of bias assessments in non-Cochrane reviews
• Approaches to the identification, synthesis and appraisal of frameworks, models and theories: A methodology review
• Appropriate use of the label "systematic review" according to a novel definition in a sample of recently published papers
• Appropriateness of asymmetry tests for publication bias in meta-analysis: large-scale survey
• Archie Cochrane's Second E - the creation of Value based Healthcare
• Archie training for Cochrane Review Group (CRG) editors
• Are 'Risk of bias' summary graphs in Cochrane Reviews overestimating bias?
• Are 3 days enough to capture the key evidence for HTA documents?
• Are all Cochrane reviews born equal? Methodological quality across different Review Groups
• Are all Cochrane reviews born equal? Methodological quality across different Review Groups
• Are all Cochrane Reviews born equal? Statistical methods in Cochrane Reviews (could be improved)
• Are Australian Human Research Ethics Committees effectively promoting prospective trial registration?
• Are awaiting classification studies properly managed by Cochrane Reviews?
• Are claims made in advertisements of nutritional supplements in South African women’s magazines supported by research evidence?
• Are claims of interventional benefit in clinical trial abstract conclusions justifiable? A case report of pharmacological and complementary therapies for chronic asthma
• Are clinician-administered semi-structured interviews and lay-administered fully structured interviews equivalent gold standards for major depression? An individual patient data meta-analysis
• Are Cochrane plain language summaries plain?
• Are Cochrane Review Protocols available and post-protocol changes to methods documented? A study in HIV/AIDS and ophthalmology
• Are Cochrane reviews for end users of healthcare services? The results of an international survey
• Are Cochrane reviews of diagnostic test accuracy informing clinical guidelines?
• Are Cochrane Reviews Updated Regularly or Not?
• Are Cochrane systematic reviews being used in national clinical practice guidelines for chronic kidney disease?
• Are computerized clinical decision support systems effective at improving the process of care and patient outcomes, and what makes an effective system? A decision-maker-researcher partnership systematic review
• Are conference abstracts of systematic reviews reliable and well-reported? A case study of five consecutive World Congresses of Pain
• Are criteria to evaluate the appropriateness of performing colonoscopy evidence based?
• Are harms reported in abstracts of trial results from conference proceedings?
• Are health authority policy and commissioning decisions evidence-based?
• Are Health Technology Assessment (HTA) funded trials using systematic reviews to inform their design? A retrospective cohort
• Are individual/small group interventions in math more effective than class/school level interventions? A meta-analysis of What Works Clearinghouse reviews
• Are men difficult to find? Identifying sex-specific studies in MEDLINE and Embase
• Are online learning resources effective to build capacity for evidence-informed decision making?
• Are overviews of (systematic) reviews really of good quality and transparent information?
• Are patient-reported outcomes evaluated in randomized controlled trials and meta-analyses regarding reconstruction methods after distal gastrectomy?
• Are Polish physicians familiar with the Cochrane Collaboration and the Cochrane Library?
• Are predictions from test accuracy meta-analyses valid in practice?
• Are public health strategies relevant to non-communicable disease in China covered in the Cochrane Library?
• Are RCTs addressing evidence based healthcare education following evidence based research approach?
• Are reporting and methodological quality of systematic reviews from China lower than those from USA? A meta-epidemiological study
• Are results from clinical study registers considered in recent interventional Cochrane Reviews? A systematic review
• Are retracted studies affecting our reviews?
• Are routinely collected data studies reliable surrogates when there are no randomized trials? A meta-epidemiological study
• Are school-based mindfulness interventions effective? A Campbell systematic review and meta-analysis
• Are supplementary feeding programmes to improve the health of disadvantaged young children effective? For whom and under what circumstances?
• Are systematic reviews in danger of amplifying the unimportant questions? The case of dermatology
• Are systematic reviews original research? - survey of editors of core clinical journals
• Are test treat trials as rare as suspected? A capture-recapture estimate of numbers published
• Are the estimates of blood pressure (BP) lowering effect the same in parallel and cross-over trials?
• Are the integrative practices recently incorporated into the Brazilian public healthcare system supported by evidence from Cochrane Reviews?
• Are the search and data extraction procedures similar between Cochrane Reviews and systematic reviews from other high impact factor journals?
• Are the searches of network meta-analysis comprehensive or well-reported?
• Are there differences in results between Bayesian and Frequentist network meta-analyses
• Are there discipline-specific quality measures? A systematic review of meta-epidemiological studies
• Are there missing randomized trials in Cochrane systematic reviews and what is their impact on the results?: A methodological study
• Are they doing what it says on the packet? Towards an implementation fidelity index for use in systematic reviews
• Are trial size and reported methodological quality associated with treatment effects? Observational study of 523 randomised trials
• Are unpublished data searched for and included in systematic reviews? A survey of 348 reviews of adverse effects
• Are volunteers authoring Cochrane reviews? A brief investigation.
• Are we evaluating methodological quality in the same way? Comparison of tools used in general health research and physical therapy with the 'Risk of bias' tool
• Are we listening to QUOROM (Quality of Reporting of Meta-analyses)? An evaluation of journal-published oral health systematic reviews
• Are we managing the influx of living systematic reviews? "Behemoths" and "side quests"
• Are we overestimating harm when high numbers of placebo patients are switched to active therapy as part of an adaptive trial design? A meta-epidemiological study
• Are you listening? Podcasts from The Cochrane Library; a review
• Are you listening? Podcasts from The Cochrane Library: a review of 2008
• Are you searching the right database? An example from mental health
• Area of prediction ellipse in diagnostic test accuracy reviews: Implementation in R and application to different review scenarios
• ARIA (ADAPTED RESOURCE AND IMPLEMENTATION APPLICATION) DISEASE-BASED GUIDELINE DEVELOPMENT APPROACH: INTEGRATING GLOBAL REPRESENTATION WITH EVIDENCE- AND CONSENSUS-BASED METHODS
• Arm-based versus contrast-based methods for network meta-analyses: radical differences or misunderstood nuances?
• Arriving at a bottom line for evidence quality: precision of the estimate
• Artemesinin-based combination therapy for uncomplicated Malaria management among children under-5 in Cameroon: A best-practice implementation project
• Artemisinin-based combination therapies for malaria: a systematic review and network meta-analysis
• Arthroplasty registries as a source of information for decision making: a comprehensive overview
• Artificial intelligence (AI) in drug discovery process: an overview
  
• Artificial intelligence in evidence production: critical reflections and lessons learned
  
• Artificial intelligence performance in detecting lymphoma from medical imaging: a systematic review and meta-analysis
• Artificial intelligence tools for screening references in systematic reviews. Preliminary Results of Scoping Review
• Artificial intelligence-generated plain-language summaries from Systematic Reviews for improving general public healthcare participation using the best evidence
  
• Artificially defined transformation methods for obtaining dose points in dose-response meta-analysis should be more standardized: a cross-section study.
• Ask Suicide-Screening Questionnaire (ASQ): Rapid Suicide Risk Screening for Hospitalized Patients
  
• Ask the author? Does it make a difference to quality assessment?
• Aspirin Chemoprophylaxis: Weighing the benefits and harms for patients at different levels Of risk for cardiovascular disease.
• Assessing adverse effects of interventions in Cochrane reviews: what types of study designs are used?
• Assessing and Addressing the Perceived Barriers to Evidence-Based Stroke Rehabilitation
• Assessing and adjusting for outcome reporting bias in systematic reviews
• Assessing and building capacity for clinical guideline development in Malawi, South Africa, and Nigeria
• Assessing and improving quality of reporting the estimated effect size and its precision in randomized controlled trials
• Assessing and validating search strategies: When is a study truly identified?
• Assessing applicability, scaling up and equity issues in Cochrane reviews: A worked example from a review of lay health worker interventions in primary and community health care for chronic conditions
• Assessing attitudes towards dietary fats in five countries: development and validation of Fat-related Attitude Scale (FATTS)
  
• Assessing baseline imbalance in randomised trials: implications for the Cochrane risk of bias tool
• Assessing bias due to confounding in a Cochrane Systematic Review that includes non-randomised studies of an intervention (NRSI)
• Assessing bias due to confounding in a Cochrane systematic review which includes non-randomised studies of an intervention (NRSI)
• Assessing bias due to missing data in a systematic review that includes non-randomised studies (NRS)
• Assessing bias in osteoarthritis trials included in Cochrane reviews
• Assessing bias in selection of participants into studies in a Cochrane Review that includes non-randomised studies of an intervention (NRSI)
• Assessing bias in selection of participants into the study in a Cochrane Systematic Review that includes non-randomised studies of an intervention (NRSI)
• Assessing characteristics and outcomes of interventions designed to mitigate the effects of adverse childhood experiences: A Scoping review
• Assessing conceptual richness in a meta-ethnography: an example from a qualitative evidence synthesis on factors influencing acceptance of childhood vaccination
• Assessing confidence in qualitative evidence used in guidelines: Benefits and challenges when applying GRADE-CERQual
• Assessing dementia care gaps to guide clinical guidance scoping and other implementation efforts—the Singapore experience
• Assessing equity, applicability and scaling up issues in Cochrane reviews: a worked example from a review of lay health worker interventions in primary and community health care
• Assessing ethics and equity issues in systematic reviews and primary studies of nutrition interventions
• Assessing Financial Conflicts of Interest in Published Research Using a Large Language Model: A Proof of Concept Study
  
• Assessing generalizability of findings in systematic reviews of public health interventions: methods of the US Community Preventive Services Task Force
• Assessing GPT-3.5 Turbo’s performance in primary screening across diverse types of systematic literature reviews
• Assessing healthcare interventions along the complex-simple continuum
• Assessing healthcare interventions along the complex-simple continuum: a proposal
• Assessing heterogeneity in meta-analysis: what Q, I², Tau², and prediction intervals do and do not tell us
  
• Assessing how information is packaged in rapid reviews for policymakers and other stakeholders: a cross-sectional study
• Assessing how much certainty to place in findings from qualitative evidence syntheses: the CerQual approach
• Assessing how much confidence to place in findings from qualitative evidence syntheses: a new version of the CERQual tool
• Assessing how much confidence to place in findings from qualitative evidence syntheses: a new version of the GRADE-CERQual approach
• Assessing how much confidence to place in findings from qualitative evidence syntheses: a new version of the GRADE-CERQual tool
• Assessing how well interventions for migrant population have addressed inequity: a two-stage systematic review
• Assessing implementation in complex interventions: tips, strategies and examples
• Assessing imprecision in Cochrane systematic reviews: a comparison of GRADE and Trial Sequential Analysis
• Assessing Leg Ulcer Prevalence Studies: Conceptual, Methodological and Practical Issues
• Assessing methodological quality in a large research literature: the case of distance education comparison studies
• Assessing Methodological Quality in Cohort Studies: A Comparison of NOS and ROBINS-I
• Assessing methodological quality of primary studies and applying results in the cochrane reviews. An evaluation of the drugs and alcohol group s reviews.
• Assessing publication bias in systematic reviews andmeta-analyses in the context of small n trials: application of a capture-recapture method
• Assessing quality in systematic reviews of the effective­ness of health promotion and public health: areas of consensus and dissension
• Assessing risk of bias (RoB) in randomized trials: RoB 2.0
• Assessing risk of bias in comparative diagnostic accuracy studies using QUADAS-C
• Assessing risk of bias in included studies: the recommended tool for Cochrane reviews
• Assessing risk of bias in non-randomised studies and incorporating GRADE: Initial experience with a new Cochrane 'Risk of bias' tool under development
• Assessing risk of bias in non-randomized studies of interventions (1): introduction to the ROBINS-I tool
• Assessing risk of bias in non-randomized studies of interventions 2: an online tool to facilitate risk of bias assessments using the ROBINS-I tool
• Assessing risk of bias in non-randomized studies of interventions: introduction to the ROBINS-I tool
• Assessing risk of bias in nonrandomized studies of interventions: introduction to the ROBINS-I tool
• Assessing risk of bias in randomised studies: RoB 2.0
• Assessing risk of bias in randomized trials: RoB 2
• Assessing risk of bias: comparison of the PEDro scale with Cochrane’s ‘Risk of bias’ tool
• Assessing risk of lead-time bias in studies of overdiagnosis
• Assessing risk of performance and detection bias in Cochrane reviews as a single domain is less accurate compared to assessment of two separate domains
• Assessing spin bias in abstracts of systematic reviews from Revista médica de Chile between 2017-2021
• Assessing success of guideline implementation: development of a generalized tool facilitating cross-comparison and targeted improvement
• Assessing the Accuracy, Reliability and Quality of Online Health Information of Treatment for Patients With COVID-19
• Assessing the availability, scope, and quality of stroke rehabilitation guidelines in LMICs - a systematic review of quality and scope
  
• Assessing the body of evidence and grading recommendations in evidence-based clinical practice guidelines
• Assessing the certainty across a body of evidence for comparative test accuracy
• Assessing the certainty of evidence in overviews of reviews: current practice and expert perspectives
• Assessing the certainty of evidence in studies about peoples’ values, utilities, or the importance of outcomes
  
• Assessing the certainty of the evidence from network-meta analysis using the GRADE approach
• Assessing the certainty of the evidence from network-meta analysis using the GRADE approach
• Assessing the certainty of the evidence from network-meta analysis using the GRADE approach
• Assessing the certainty of the evidence in network meta-analysis: GRADE approach
• Assessing the completeness and comparability of outcomes in systematic reviews addressing food availability
• Assessing the completeness of systematic reviews via the 'related articles' function and/or a simple structured Boolean search in PubMed,-,a pilot study
• Assessing the Current Landscape of Health Technology Assessment Knowledge and Skills Among Clinicians in Croatia
  
• Assessing the effect of adjusting for funnel plot asymmetry in networks of interventions
• Assessing the Effectiveness and Safety of Deep Brain Stimulation in Severe and Refractory Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder: A Living Systematic Review
• Assessing the effectiveness of artificial intelligence tools in automating systematic reviews for cancer research: a systematic review
• Assessing the effects of diagnostic tests on patient outcomes: how reliable, informative and practical are randomised controlled trials?
• Assessing the efficacy of anti-depressant treatment: methodological considerations for meta-analysis
• Assessing the feasibility of network meta-analyses comparing pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions for psychiatric disorders
• Assessing the impact of bibliographical support on the quality of medical care in patients admitted to an internal medicine service
• Assessing the impact of climate change on Eastern equine encephalitis virus in Canada.
• Assessing the impact of diverse definitions of major adverse cardiac events on coronary stent study outcomes
• Assessing the impact of information retrieval in postgraduate medical education
• Assessing the impact of missing participant data for continuous outcomes in systematic reviews on risk of bias
• Assessing the methodological and reporting quality of clinical Systematic reviews and meta-analyses published in the Leading Sports medicine Journals
• Assessing the methodological quality of systematic review: the AMSTAR II-DTA extension
• Assessing the methodological strengths and limitations of qualitative evidence: What are the key criteria?
• Assessing the methodological strengths and limitations of qualitative evidence: what are the key criteria?
• Assessing the number, characteristics and quality of randomized controlled trials conducted in Japan
• Assessing the optimal presentation of how patients value health outcomes (values and preferences): A qualitative user testing
• Assessing the prognostic power of prediction rules: A Users’ Guide to the medical literature
• Assessing the quality of a body of evidence: experiences with the GRADE approach
• Assessing the quality of diagnostic studies that use psychometric instruments: applying QUADAS in a novel area
• Assessing the quality of economic studies of health care-searching for an ideal instrument
• ASSESSING THE QUALITY OF EVIDENCE IN NON-COCHRANE SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS
• Assessing the quality of information recorded on trial registries
• Assessing the quality of non-randomised comparative studies: Our experience of using the Cochrane Collaboration’s risk of bias tool}
• Assessing the Quality of Primary Studies: Empirical Study of Meta-Analyses Published in Leading Journals
• Assessing the quality of randomized controlled trials evaluating nonpharmacological treatments: a CheckList to Evaluate A Report of NonPharmacological Trial (CLEAR NPT)
• Assessing the Quality of Reporting Meta-analyses of Randomized Controlled Trials
• Assessing the Quality of Reports of Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses: A Systematic Review of Checklists and Scales
• Assessing the quality of surveillance studies
• Assessing the quality of the evidence for preterm labor tocolysis trials
• Assessing the richness and thickness of data in primary qualitative research included in qualitative evidence synthesis
  
• Assessing the risk of bias associated with missing participant outcome data: applying decision thresholds for binary data
• Assessing the risk of bias associated with missing participants in randomized controlled trials: a systematic review and meta-analysis in autologous cell therapy for peripheral arterial disease
• Assessing the Risk of Bias in Randomised Controlled Trials with Large Language Models: A Feasibility Study
• Assessing the Risk of Bias in Randomized Controlled Trials using RoB2 by Large Language Models: A Feasibility Study
• Assessing the risk of confounding and selection bias in a systematic review that includes non-randomized studies (NRS)
• Assessing the risk of selection bias in a systematic review which includes non-randomised studies (NRS)
• Assessing the risk of within-study selective reporting in a systematic review which includes non-randomised studies (NRS)
• Assessing the success of blinding in randomized controlled trials
• Assessing the usability of ACROBAT-NRSI for studies of exposure and intervention in environmental health research
• Assessing the validity of abbreviated literature searches in rapid reviews
• Assessing the validity of an ultra-rapid review strategy: four case studies from oncology and public health