Systematic reviews and meta-analyses are essential tools for synthesizing research evidence and informing healthcare decisions. To minimize bias and errors in methodology, these reviews typically involve multiple reviewers independently screening titles, abstracts, and full texts against predefined eligibility criteria1. A crucial step in this process is the selection of relevant studies. However, disagreements between reviewers during screening are inevitable. This can be due to human error, differences in interpretation, or even unconscious biases2. This article explores the challenges associated with reviewer disagreements in systematic reviews, discusses common causes and methods for resolving disagreements, and highlights best practices for minimizing discrepancies and ensuring the rigor and reliability of study selection.
| Method | Advantages | Disadvantages |
|---|---|---|
| Discussion and consensus | Encourages collaboration, shared understanding | May be time-consuming, potential for unresolved disagreements |
| Third-party adjudication | Provides independent assessment, expertise | Requires additional resources, potential for bias from the third reviewer |
| Arbitration | Ensures a final decision | Can be costly, may not consider all perspectives |
| Voting | Simple, efficient | May not be suitable for complex disagreements |
| Delphi methodology | Structured approach, minimizes individual bias | Can be time-consuming, requires careful planning |