Title and abstract screening
The phase where the team decides, reference by reference, what goes on to full text. Two reviewers work blinded, a third settles disagreements and the AI can suggest a reading order.
The screening screen
On the left, the reference (title, authors, year, journal, abstract) with the protocol keywords highlighted. On the right, the inclusion and exclusion criteria. Below, the decision buttons. References come in import order or, if the coordinator enabled it, in the order the AI proposes.
Making a decision
- Read the title and abstract.
- Press Include, Exclude or Maybe. Keyboard:
I,E,M. - If you exclude, pick the reason (optional in this phase; required at full text).
- Move on with
→. You can go back and change a decision while the phase is open.
I include · E exclude · M maybe · → next · ← previous · ? help
Leave a note on the reference for the team. It shows in the list and in conflict resolution.
Every decision is logged with who, when and which reason. See "History".
Pending list and marks
- Pending list: the button next to Previous and Next opens the references you still have to screen, in queue order, with a filter by title, author or year. Click one to open it directly.
- Mark: the button next to the title marks the reference with a reason (Waiting for the PDF, Ask the team, Review later or Other) and a note. The whole team sees it, and it changes no decision and not the queue order. «Edit» changes it and «Remove mark» deletes it.
- Marked: in the Pending list, the «Marked» filter shows only your marked pending references, with the reason and the note. The number on the button tells you how many you have.
Modes and blinding
| Mode | Who decides | When to use it |
|---|---|---|
| Single reviewer | One person | Scoping or exploratory reviews. |
| Double-blind | Two independent reviewers | The standard for systematic reviews. |
| Double-blind with third | Two reviewers and an arbiter | When conflicts are always settled by the same person. |
| Pilot (calibration) | The whole team, small sample | To agree on criteria before starting for real. |
While the phase is open, no reviewer sees the others’ decisions. The coordinator does: the coordinator view shows everyone’s progress, pending references, and lets them share the work out.
Conflicts and the third reviewer
When two reviewers disagree, the reference appears under Conflicts. The resolver sees both decisions with their reasons and comments, decides, and can leave a resolution note. “Maybe” against “Include” is not a conflict: it moves on to full text. With the AI proposal button, the AI checks the article against each inclusion and exclusion criterion of the protocol and, inside the same card, recommends including or excluding with a confidence percentage, the reason and why it thinks the reviewers disagreed. “Copy to note” moves it into the resolution note, and the activity log keeps the proposal next to the final decision.
AI suggestions
While screening, the Suggest with AI button opens the same analysis as conflict resolution in the assessment column: the AI checks the article against the protocol and proposes include, exclude or maybe. The coordinator can also ask for a prioritisation of the whole queue (the most likely references come first) and an automatic screening of very low-scoring ones, always with a confidence threshold and reviewable. Everything goes into the AI declaration (chapter 13).
- Recommendation: include, exclude or maybe.
- Confidence as a percentage, with a green (high, from 80 %), yellow (medium, from 60 %) or red (low) bar.
- Reason in two to four sentences.
- Protocol criteria one by one: met, not met or not reported, with a short note.
- “Copy to note” and “Generate again” buttons. You always make the decision.
Inter-rater agreement
The Team panel shows Cohen’s kappa (two reviewers) or Fleiss’ kappa (more than two) computed over the references everyone has screened, and how many each person has left.
Did this chapter help? Tell us what is missing via Contact.