Chapter 4 of 8
Screening
The next major workflow step is screening. Screening always starts with clear inclusion and exclusion criteria—the rules that define which studies belong in your review. Those criteria are the benchmark every retrieved record is judged against.
AIPRA guides you through tailored questions about your topic so the platform can help shape eligibility rules that match your research question and protocol. Your answers inform how strict or broad the review should be and what study designs and populations are in scope.

Once captured, the criteria are stated explicitly so the whole team applies the same standard. Every title, abstract, and full text is compared against that benchmark to decide whether the work should move forward in the project.

Assisted screening in AIPRA
During screening, AIPRA can surface recommendations for each article: suggested include or exclude decisions grounded in your stated criteria, together with a short rationale. Reviewers remain in control—recommendations support consistency and speed, but final decisions should follow your protocol and, where needed, librarian or methods oversight.
Two screening phases
The goal is to retain only studies that meet your inclusion rules. That usually happens in two phases:
- Phase 1 — Title and abstract. For most records, reviewers decide inclusion, exclusion, or “unclear” using title and abstract alone. This step filters out the bulk of irrelevant citations efficiently.
- Phase 2 — Full text. Any record marked included or unclear after phase 1 proceeds to full-text screening, where the complete article is read against the same criteria.


In phase 2, reviewers open the full text in AIPRA and apply the same eligibility rules to the complete article.

Resolving disagreements between reviewers
In projects with multiple reviewers, it is common for some articles to receive conflicting votes—for example one reviewer includes and another excludes. Good practice is to resolve those conflicts with a predefined rule, often by involving a third, senior reviewer who adjudicates without having been part of the initial pair. That keeps decisions transparent and reduces bias from repeated discussion alone.
AIPRA’s screening workflow is built to record who decided what, so adjudication and final outcomes stay traceable for the protocol and the published review.