Coding, the  process by which the published papers in our sample were read, reviewed, and  documented, was done by C.C.W., W.D.B., J. W., and T.E.N. Articles used were  the result of a PubMed search over the past 10 years. At the onset, 1086  potentially relevant papers were assembled. Covidence.org was used as a means  of screening abstracts and titles to remove papers that were not useful. Each  article required two separate ‘yes’ votes to be included in our study, and two  separate ‘no’ votes to be excluded. Disputes were resolved via group  discussion. 885 articles were included in our study of which 285 were randomly  sampled and divided evenly four ways. Each person was partnered with another so  that all of the coding process was reviewed once over. The articles were taken  from PubMed from the past 10 years. The papers were analyzed for nine specific  pieces of information: outcome, measurement device, metric, method of  aggregation, primacy of outcome, whether the outcome was a hard or side effect  of an intervention, study design, sample size, & study type. Google Sheets  and Google Drive were used to document our analysis.