Why the research question comes first

The AIPRA workflow begins with formulating the research question: the step where you, as the domain expert, define what the systematic process is meant to answer. A strong question is specific, answerable, and scoped tightly enough to drive search, screening, and synthesis.

In practice, that means anchoring the question in a recognized framework. For quantitative, clinical reviews, PICO (Population, Intervention, Comparison, Outcome) is the usual standard. Other common frameworks include SPIDER (qualitative and mixed methods), PEO (exposure and experiences), and SPICE (social sciences). Each framework helps you define scope, search terms, and later inclusion criteria in a structured way.

AIPRA takes the idea you write in plain language and helps formulate a research question aligned with one of these frameworks, chosen to fit your field and review type.

Building your team

Several stages of a systematic review are designed for independent assessment by more than one reviewer, with a third person to resolve disagreements. For a conventional, high-quality systematic review, teams often plan for at least three people with relevant expertise.

Screening is a typical example: two reviewers each assess records independently; when they disagree on including or excluding an article, a third reviewer adjudicates. Data extraction from full text often follows the same pattern—parallel extraction and conflict resolution—so conclusions stay traceable and defensible.

AIPRA supports this by letting you invite collaborators by email or by sharing an invitation link, so reviewers can join the project with clear roles.

Rapid reviews: When screening and extraction are carried out by a single expert, the work is often described as a rapid review. That approach can be appropriate for time-critical decisions, but it is generally considered less methodologically rigorous than independent dual review with adjudication.