Regina Kunz

Research interests

Publications

• Opioids for Chronic Noncancer Pain

  JAMA · 2018 · https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2018.18472

• GRADE guidelines: 18. How ROBINS-I and other tools to assess risk of bias in nonrandomized studies should be used to rate the certainty of a body of evidence

  Journal of Clinical Epidemiology · 2018 · https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2018.01.012

• GRADE guidelines: 14. Going from evidence to recommendations: the significance and presentation of recommendations

  Journal of Clinical Epidemiology · 2013 · 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2012.03.013

• Effects of interventions in pregnancy on maternal weight and obstetric outcomes: meta-analysis of randomised evidence

  BMJ · 2012 · https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.e2088

• GRADE guidelines: 12. Preparing Summary of Findings tables—binary outcomes

  Journal of Clinical Epidemiology · 2012 · https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2012.01.012

• GRADE guidelines: 11. Making an overall rating of confidence in effect estimates for a single outcome and for all outcomes

  Journal of Clinical Epidemiology · 2012 · 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2012.01.006

• GRADE guidelines: 13. Preparing Summary of Findings tables and evidence profiles—continuous outcomes

  Journal of Clinical Epidemiology · 2012 · https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2012.08.001

• GRADE guidelines: 3. Rating the quality of evidence

  Journal of Clinical Epidemiology · 2011 · https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.07.015

• GRADE guidelines: 1. Introduction—GRADE evidence profiles and summary of findings tables

  Journal of Clinical Epidemiology · 2011 · https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.04.026

• GRADE guidelines: 4. Rating the quality of evidence—study limitations (risk of bias)

  Journal of Clinical Epidemiology · 2011 · https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.07.017

• GRADE guidelines: 7. Rating the quality of evidence—inconsistency

  Journal of Clinical Epidemiology · 2011 · 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2011.03.017

• GRADE guidelines 6. Rating the quality of evidence—imprecision

  Journal of Clinical Epidemiology · 2011 · 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2011.01.012

• GRADE guidelines: 8. Rating the quality of evidence—indirectness

  Journal of Clinical Epidemiology · 2011 · 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2011.04.014

• GRADE guidelines: 5. Rating the quality of evidence—publication bias

  Journal of Clinical Epidemiology · 2011 · 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2011.01.011

• GRADE guidelines: 9. Rating up the quality of evidence

  Journal of Clinical Epidemiology · 2011 · 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2011.06.004

• GRADE guidelines: 2. Framing the question and deciding on important outcomes

  Journal of Clinical Epidemiology · 2010 · 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.09.012

• What is “quality of evidence” and why is it important to clinicians?

  BMJ · 2008 · https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.39490.551019.be

• Going from evidence to recommendations

  BMJ · 2008 · 10.1136/bmj.39493.646875.ae

• GRADE: an emerging consensus on rating quality of evidence and strength of recommendations

  BMJ · 2008 · https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.39489.470347.ad

• Meta-analysis: Effect of Monotherapy and Combination Therapy with Inhibitors of the Renin–Angiotensin System on Proteinuria in Renal Disease

  Annals of Internal Medicine · 2008 · https://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-148-1-200801010-00190

• Grading quality of evidence and strength of recommendations for diagnostic tests and strategies

  BMJ · 2008 · 10.1136/bmj.39500.677199.ae

• Five steps to conducting a systematic review

  Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine · 2003 · 10.1258/jrsm.96.3.118

• Five Steps to Conducting a Systematic Review

  Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine · 2003 · 10.1177/014107680309600304

• The unpredictability paradox: review of empirical comparisons of randomised and non-randomised clinical trials

  BMJ · 1998 · 10.1136/bmj.317.7167.1185

Current projects

No projects listed.