For reviews being completed in the “Medical and health sciences” area, you can now enable the RCT classifier tagging functionality via the settings page.
You can also update the type of review and area of research via the settings page.
Enable/disable the RCT classifier tagging on existing reviews
Mark any study as a duplicate, including primary references
Improvement
You can now mark any study as a duplicate using the “Duplicate” action, including those that the system has identified as a primary reference:
Improved experience when uploading and managing full texts
Improvement
We’ve made improvements to how you can upload and manage full texts during full text screening with a new upload screen. On the new screen you can easily:
- Drag and drop or select to upload PDFs
- Add a link to the full text
- Remove full texts
- View who uploaded the full text and when
- Update which PDF is the primary full text
Open your uploaded full texts from the full text screening list
New
To save you time when screening, once you have uploaded a full text, all members of the reviewing team will be able to see the file name or link on the screening list. From here, you can open them in one click.
Export studies missing full text
New
To support your full text retrieval process you can now export which studies are missing full text. You can find this option via the Review Summary Page and clicking the 'Export' button.
For more information, check out this article.
Drag and drop PDFs onto the full text screening list
New
Save time uploading PDFs during full text screening, by using the new drag and drop feature. You can now drag and drop directly onto the full text screening list.
Improved experience when changing the number of reviewers required for data extraction
Improvement
We've made changes to improve the experience when changing the number of reviewers required to complete data extraction.
Previously, if you updated your review settings so that only one reviewer is required to complete data extraction. Those studies that had two reviewers already assigned would require both reviewers to complete extraction before you could move onto consensus.
Now, if two reviewers are assigned to a study, all data will be preserved but only one reviewer will be required to complete data extraction before the study can progress to the consensus stage of data extraction.
Improvements to how contribution is calculated in title & abstract screening
Improvement
We’ve made changes to how contribution counts are calculated to improve their accuracy, taking into account votes being undone and studies being moved back to screening.
Previously, when reviewers chose to move a study back to screening or mark a study as a duplicate, that study's votes still contributed to the count. Now they will not.
For more information about how contribution is calculated, check out this article.
Automatically tag studies reporting on RCTs using the Cochrane RCT Classifier (medical & health sciences reviews only)
New
When creating a new review on Covidence in the medical & health sciences area, you will now have an option to enable functionality that will tag studies reporting on RCTs using the Cochrane RCT Classifier. Cochrane reviews will also have the ability to turn this functionality on.
When enabled, studies imported to the review will be run through the Cochrane RCT classifier and tagged with either “Possible RCT” or “Not RCT”.
For more information, check out this article.
Covidence will upload Open Access articles when importing references into Full Text or Data Extraction
New
If you import directly into full text screening or data extraction Covidence will upload an Open Access article if one is available. We will use the DOI on the reference to see if the article is open access. This will run in the background once references have been uploaded.
You can identify if a study has had an Open Access article uploaded by the sentence under the study title “Full text uploaded by Covidence (Open Access)".