Gibson D. Lewis Library Libguides
Step Four is expected to take approximately 8 weeks, or around 320 hours, to complete. Be sure to factor this into your planning, this time estimate assumes all team members are working exclusively on this project.
(UNC, 2025)
In Step Four, you must screen all the studies you've identified to determine the relevance of each study to your research question and asses the qualities for each one you include. By referring to your protocol, collaborating effectively, and using tools like Covidence, this process should run smoothly.
During this step, you will complete:
In the title and abstract screening, you will be determining the relevance to the research question and quickly filter out articles based on eligibility criteria. This process ensures that only promising articles move on to the full-text review.
In this stage, you will:
Use Covidence or a similar tool to import and manage your references. Submit your request to join the UNTHSC Covidence account to AskALibrarian@unthsc.edu.
Read the title and abstract of every article.
Vote to include or exclude each study based on pre-defined eligibility criteria as established in your protocol.
Ensure two independent reviewers assess each article.
Resolve disputes through discussion or with a third reviewer.
Apply inclusion/exclusion criteria consistently.
Document your decisions and disagreements clearly for transparency and reproducibility.
After the title and abstract screening, the next step is to examine the full texts of the studies found. This screening is more rigorous and helps confirm whether or not each study meets your inclusion criteria. Be sure to thoroughly document your decisions to include/exclude and the reasoning why. Keep in mind the PRISMA guidelines.
Retrieve the full texts of potentially relevant studies.
Review full texts to determine final inclusion.
Record reasons for exclusion in accordance with PRISMA guidelines.
The next crucial step is to assess the quality of evidence and the potential for bias. This helps make sure that the research you synthesize is not only relevant but reliable too. Critical appraisal enables you to identify methodological flaws and discrepancies in study design that may affect the validity of your findings. To be objective, this must be done independently by at least two reviewers with the aid of standard appraisal tools.
Assess the quality and risk of bias for each included study using validated tools:
Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool – for randomized trials.
ROBINS-I – for non-randomized studies.
CASP Checklists – for a variety of study types.
AMSTAR 2 – for systematic reviews.
GRADE- for rating the certainty of evidence across outcomes.
Use the table below to understand which tool may be the best for your review.
