RESEARCH & METHODS

The Systematicly Journal

Original research, methods papers, and technical reports on AI-assisted evidence synthesis, research methodology, and the future of academic research.

GuideMarch 25, 20269 min read

How to Screen Studies for a Systematic Review: A Practical Guide

Study screening is the process of evaluating identified records against predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria to determine which studies enter a systematic review. This phase typically consumes 40 to 60 percent of total review time and is where most methodological errors occur. This guide walks through each stage of the screening process, explains how to write effective inclusion criteria, and compares manual, semi-automated, and AI-assisted screening approaches.

Systematic ReviewsScreeningStudy SelectionResearch Methods
Read more →
GuideMarch 25, 20268 min read

PRISMA Flow Diagram: Complete Guide to the 2020 Standard

The PRISMA flow diagram is a standardised visual summary of how studies move through a systematic review, from identification to final inclusion. This guide covers the PRISMA 2020 update, explains all four phases of the flow diagram, compares tools and templates, and addresses common mistakes.

PRISMASystematic ReviewsFlow DiagramResearch Methods
Read more →
GuideMarch 25, 20267 min read

Systematic Review vs Meta-Analysis: Key Differences Explained

Systematic reviews and meta-analyses represent the highest levels of evidence in evidence-based medicine, yet many researchers conflate the two approaches. A systematic review is a comprehensive, protocol-driven synthesis of evidence addressing a research question, whilst meta-analysis applies statistical techniques to combine quantitative data into a single estimate of treatment effect. Not all systematic reviews include meta-analysis, but all meta-analyses must be conducted within a systematic review framework. This guide clarifies key differences between these complementary methods and explains how they work together to provide robust evidence for clinical practice decisions.

Systematic ReviewsMeta-AnalysisEvidence SynthesisResearch Methods
Read more →
ResearchMarch 10, 202612 min read

AI-Assisted Abstract Screening Achieves 97.3% Sensitivity Across 14 Systematic Reviews: A Validation Study

Background: Manual title and abstract screening remains the most time-intensive phase of systematic reviews, often consuming 40–60% of total project hours. AI-assisted screening tools promise to reduce this burden, but independent validation across diverse clinical topics is limited. Objective: To evaluate the sensitivity, specificity, and workload reduction of Systematicly's AI screening module across 14 completed systematic reviews spanning cardiovascular medicine, oncology, mental health, and public health. Methods: We retrospectively applied the AI screening algorithm to 14 published systematic reviews comprising 28,417 unique records. Each record had a human-determined gold-standard inclusion decision. We measured sensitivity (recall), specificity, F1 score, and the proportion of records that could be safely excluded without manual review. Results: The AI module achieved a pooled sensitivity of 97.3% (95% CI: 95.8–98.4%) and specificity of 82.1% (95% CI: 79.6–84.3%). Median workload reduction was 63% of records safely auto-excluded. No included study was missed in 12 of 14 reviews. Conclusions: AI-assisted screening demonstrates high sensitivity suitable for integration into systematic review workflows, with substantial time savings for research teams.

Machine LearningSystematic ReviewsScreeningValidation
Read more →