# Regina Kunz

**Type:** Researchers  
**Canonical URL:** https://scholariq.org/researchers/regina-kunz/

## Facts

| Field | Value |
| --- | --- |
| Citations | 81,578 |
| Field | Meta-analysis and systematic reviews |
| h-index | 55 |
| i10-index | 106 |
| Last Known Institution | Department of Biomedicine Basel |
| OpenAlex ID | https://openalex.org/A5058128340 |
| ORCID iD | https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0931-8990 |
| Works | 214 |

## Researcher papers

Showing 12 of 15.

- [GRADE: an emerging consensus on rating quality of evidence and strength of recommendations](https://scholariq.org/papers/grade-an-emerging-consensus-on-rating-quality-of-evidence-and-strength-of/)
- [GRADE guidelines: 1. Introduction—GRADE evidence profiles and summary of findings tables](https://scholariq.org/papers/grade-guidelines-1-introduction-grade-evidence-profiles-and-summary-of-findings/)
- [GRADE guidelines: 3. Rating the quality of evidence](https://scholariq.org/papers/grade-guidelines-3-rating-the-quality-of-evidence/)
- [What is “quality of evidence” and why is it important to clinicians?](https://scholariq.org/papers/what-is-quality-of-evidence-and-why-is-it-important-to-clinicians/)
- [GRADE guidelines: 4. Rating the quality of evidence—study limitations (risk of bias)](https://scholariq.org/papers/grade-guidelines-4-rating-the-quality-of-evidence-study-limitations-risk-of-bias/)
- [GRADE guidelines 6. Rating the quality of evidence—imprecision](https://scholariq.org/papers/grade-guidelines-6-rating-the-quality-of-evidence-imprecision/)
- [GRADE guidelines: 7. Rating the quality of evidence—inconsistency](https://scholariq.org/papers/grade-guidelines-7-rating-the-quality-of-evidence-inconsistency/)
- [GRADE guidelines: 8. Rating the quality of evidence—indirectness](https://scholariq.org/papers/grade-guidelines-8-rating-the-quality-of-evidence-indirectness/)
- [Grading quality of evidence and strength of recommendations for diagnostic tests and strategies](https://scholariq.org/papers/grading-quality-of-evidence-and-strength-of-recommendations-for-diagnostic-tests/)
- [Five Steps to Conducting a Systematic Review](https://scholariq.org/papers/five-steps-to-conducting-a-systematic-review-2/)
- [Five steps to conducting a systematic review](https://scholariq.org/papers/five-steps-to-conducting-a-systematic-review/)
- [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](https://scholariq.org/papers/grade-guidelines-18-how-robins-i-and-other-tools-to-assess-risk-of-bias-in/)

## Researcher topics

- [Meta-analysis and systematic reviews](https://scholariq.org/topics/meta-analysis-and-systematic-reviews/)
- [Clinical practice guidelines implementation](https://scholariq.org/topics/clinical-practice-guidelines-implementation/)
- [Health Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life](https://scholariq.org/topics/health-systems-economic-evaluations-quality-of-life/)
- [Workplace Health and Well-being](https://scholariq.org/topics/workplace-health-and-well-being-2/)
- [Health Sciences Research and Education](https://scholariq.org/topics/health-sciences-research-and-education/)

---
Source: ScholarIQ — public research metadata, principally OpenAlex. See https://scholariq.org/sources/ for provenance and https://scholariq.org/methodology/ for what these figures mean.