Alle Fallstudien
Fallstudie
A dual-screened review a journal will accept, from a small lab
A PI runs a journal-standard systematic review with a small team, students screen independently, she resolves conflicts, extraction is verified, and PRISMA writes itself.
AcademicResearch InstitutionsSystematic ReviewDual ReviewExtract DataPRISMA reporting
Two students screened independently, I resolved conflicts, and extraction was verified before synthesis. The methods section practically wrote itself, the PRISMA numbers came straight from the workflow.
Über
Priya leads a six-person public health research lab that publishes systematic reviews and supervises graduate students.
Die Herausforderung
A journal-standard review needs independent dual screening, documented decisions, verified extraction, and PRISMA, hard to run rigorously with a small team and no dedicated review software, and painful to document at the end.
Wie Paperguide sich einfügt
Paperguide runs the review method with the team’s roles built in, so independent screening, conflict resolution, and verified extraction happen in one workspace and the documentation is a byproduct.
In der Praxis
Priya’s lab wanted to publish a systematic review on exercise interventions and depression outcomes, and she faced the perennial problem of the small team: a journal expects independent dual screening, documented decisions, verified extraction, and a PRISMA diagram, but she had two graduate students and no dedicated review software, and the documentation was always the part that got painful at the end.
She ran it as a proper dual review from the start. Her two students screened every paper independently, without seeing each other’s calls, while the platform put the same cited per-criterion evidence in front of both, so their decisions were faster and, because they were reasoning from the same extracted evidence, they diverged less often. Where they did disagree, Priya stepped in as the conflict resolver with that same evidence in view. For the included studies, the team extracted design, population, intervention, comparator, outcome measure, effect, and limitations into a table, and each paper’s data was verified before it fed the synthesis. When it came time to write the methods section, the PRISMA numbers were already there, generated from the review’s actual counts, so the part she used to dread mostly wrote itself.
What this gave a six-person lab was a review that meets journal standards without journal-scale staffing: independent screening and verified extraction handled in one workspace, and a defensible, documented method as a byproduct of doing the work rather than a separate project bolted on at the end.
Diese Features leisten hier die Arbeit: Systematic Review, Dual Review, Extract Data, PRISMA reporting.
Ergebnisse
- A journal-standard, dual-screened review from a small team
- Verified, cited extraction feeding a defensible synthesis
- PRISMA generated from the workflow, not reconstructed
Weitere Fallstudien
<1 weekfor a 2,000-paper PRISMA review
A 2,000-paper PRISMA review screened and extracted in a fraction of the time, without loosening the criteria.
Read case study6×faster paper analysis
Three separate tools became one workspace, so reading, extracting, and comparing papers happens in a single pass.
Read case study83%faster review across 100 papers
Custom-column extraction across hundreds of nanomedicine papers, every value cited back to its source.
Read case studyBeginnen Sie mit einer Frage
Stellen Sie eine Frage, der Sie schon lange nachgehen wollten. Paperguide findet die Papers – und Sie treiben es so weit, wie die Arbeit es verlangt.