References

Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, Boutron I, Hoffmann TC, Mulrow CD, et al. (2021). The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ 372:n71. doi:10.1136/bmj.n71

The reporting standard behind the flow diagram, the fact sheet's checklist items, and the two-stage screening structure.

Page MJ, Moher D, Bossuyt PM, Boutron I, Hoffmann TC, Mulrow CD, et al. (2021). PRISMA 2020 explanation and elaboration: updated guidance and exemplars for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ 372:n160. doi:10.1136/bmj.n160

Item-by-item guidance the Report page's fact sheet rows follow.

Rethlefsen ML, Kirtley S, Waffenschmidt S, Ayala AP, Moher D, Page MJ, Koffel JB (2021). PRISMA-S: an extension to the PRISMA statement for reporting literature searches in systematic reviews. Systematic Reviews 10:39. doi:10.1186/s13643-020-01542-z

Why Discovery records the exact search string, fields, limits, per-database dates and hit counts.

Webster J, Watson RT (2002). Analyzing the past to prepare for the future: writing a literature review. MIS Quarterly 26(2):xiii–xxiii.

The concept matrix at the heart of the Synthesize page, and backward/forward citation searching.

vom Brocke J, Simons A, Niehaves B, Riemer K, Plattfaut R, Cleven A (2009). Reconstructing the giant: on the importance of rigour in documenting the literature search process. Proceedings of the 17th European Conference on Information Systems (ECIS), 2206–2217. link

The case for documenting the search so it can be reconstructed; the reason everything here is logged and exportable.

Richardson WS, Wilson MC, Nishikawa J, Hayward RS (1995). The well-built clinical question: a key to evidence-based decisions. ACP Journal Club 123(3):A12–A13.

Origin of the PICO scheme behind the optional PICOT framing of the research question.

Fain JA (2025). How to write a systematic literature review. Sage Perspectives, April 3, 2025. link

A current walkthrough recommending PICOT framing, a priori criteria, and matrix tables for extraction.

Wohlin C (2014). Guidelines for snowballing in systematic literature studies and a replication in software engineering. Proceedings of the 18th International Conference on Evaluation and Assessment in Software Engineering (EASE). doi:10.1145/2601248.2601268

The backward/forward snowballing procedure the Snowball page records seed by seed with provenance. Wohlin iterates until no new papers surface; the tool records each round and leaves the stopping decision to the review team.

Waffenschmidt S, Knelangen M, Sieben W, Bühn S, Pieper D (2019). Single screening versus conventional double screening for study selection in systematic reviews: a methodological systematic review. BMC Medical Research Methodology 19:132. doi:10.1186/s12874-019-0782-0

The evidence that single screening misses studies; why independent dual screening is a first-class mode.

Cohen J (1960). A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educational and Psychological Measurement 20(1):37–46. doi:10.1177/001316446002000104

Cohen's kappa, reported for two-reviewer screening.

Fleiss JL (1971). Measuring nominal scale agreement among many raters. Psychological Bulletin 76(5):378–382. doi:10.1037/h0031619

Fleiss' kappa, reported when more than two reviewers screen.

Landis JR, Koch GG (1977). The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 33(1):159–174. doi:10.2307/2529310

The interpretation bands (slight to almost perfect) shown beside kappa values.

Khraisha Q, Put S, Kappenberg J, Warraitch A, Hadfield K (2024). Can large language models replace humans in systematic reviews? Evaluating GPT-4's efficacy in screening and extracting data from peer-reviewed and grey literature in multiple languages. Research Synthesis Methods 15(4). doi:10.1002/jrsm.1715

Evidence that LLM screening is usable but error-prone; the reason the prescreen only removes records on unanimous, evidence-cited votes and leaves every other decision to humans.