Resolve a screening disagreement by comparing the reviewers' criterion-level reasons, identifying the first point where their judgments diverge, and adjudicating that point against the written eligibility criteria. The Cochrane Handbook describes study selection as a documented process within a systematic review, and PRISMA 2020 asks reviews to report transparently what studies were found and included, so the resolution should leave a record that supports both.
-
Restate each reviewer's reason per criterion. Ask both reviewers to record a decision and a reason for each eligibility criterion, such as population, intervention, comparator, outcome, or study design. Expected result: two reason sets you can line up criterion by criterion instead of two overall verdicts.
-
Find the first point of divergence. Compare the reason sets in the order the criteria appear in the protocol. Expected result: the earliest criterion where the reviewers reached different conclusions, which is the actual source of the disagreement. Later differences often follow from this first one.
-
Adjudicate against the written criteria. Return to the protocol's eligibility wording and decide whether the study meets that specific criterion as written. Expected result: a resolution tied to the criteria text, with the deciding rationale recorded.
-
Log the resolution and update the screening codebook. Record the study, the disputed criterion, both reviewers' reasons, and the final decision. If the criteria wording allowed two readings, revise the codebook with a clarifying example so later screening applies the same interpretation.
What to record
Keep the log alongside your screening records so the selection process can be reported consistently with PRISMA 2020's emphasis on transparency about included studies. When the criteria remain genuinely ambiguous after discussion, treat the case as a protocol clarification question and document the interpretation you adopt.