Screening shouldn't take months
Thousands of results.
A good search brings back thousands of papers. Most of them were never going to make it.
Every one read by hand.
Someone still has to read every title and abstract to clear them out.
The review stalls.
Screening is where deadlines slip and good researchers burn out.
Hard to trust, harder to defend.
When a tool sets papers aside, how do you know it didn't drop the one that mattered? And what do you write in your methods?
- 01
Add your criteria.
Paste your eligibility criteria, just as you wrote them.
- 02
Import your results.
Upload the files from your database searches.
- 03
Get a score for every paper.
See which papers clearly fail your criteria.
- 04
Check it, then screen what matters.
Look through a sample of what was set aside. Your team reads the rest, best candidates first.
Tested on real published reviews
About98%
of the papers that made it into the final reviews were kept, at the standard setting.
About7 in 10
clearly irrelevant papers were set aside at the same setting.
Some reviews are harder than others. On the cautious setting, it kept essentially all of the papers that made it into the final reviews, while still clearing about half the noise.
Why researchers will like it
Your criteria, as written.
No special format. No training it on hundreds of papers first.
You choose how cautious it is.
Cautious, standard or aggressive. Change your mind any time.
Nothing is deleted.
Every paper set aside stays visible, and you can check them whenever you like.
Check it on your review.
Pull a random sample of what was set aside and screen it yourself, before you rely on it.
Refine as you learn.
Protocols get clearer as you screen. Every version of your criteria is saved, and re-screening is included.
Ready for your methods section.
A ready-made methods paragraph, the setting you used and the numbers for your flow diagram.
Built so nothing slips through
Screening safety starts before the first decision. Cidexar never quietly removes a paper, at any step.
Nothing lost on import.
Records missing an abstract or other details are kept and flagged, never silently dropped.
Duplicates you decide on.
Cidexar flags likely duplicates and shows you why. It never removes one for you.
Every decision on record.
Change your mind as often as you need. Every decision is saved with its history.
- Import from RIS, PubMed, EndNote, BibTeX or a spreadsheet
- Duplicates flagged across all your searches, never removed for you
- A score and a clear tier for every paper
- A focused screening queue for your team's decisions
- Every version of your criteria saved
- Export to Excel, with the numbers for your flow diagram and a methods paragraph
Supporting researchers across your institution?
Give your researchers one annual contract, one invoice, private workspaces and a full record of every review.
Will it miss important papers?
It can. In our testing at the standard setting, it kept about 98% of the papers that made it into the final published reviews. Results vary by review. That’s why nothing is deleted, why you can pick a more cautious setting, and why spot-checks are built in.
Does it work equally well on every review?
No tool does. In our testing, results varied from review to review, and some topics are harder than others. That’s why you choose the setting, why nothing is deleted and why you can check its work on your own review by sampling what was set aside.
Can I use it in a published systematic review?
Yes. Cidexar is a screening aid, and your team makes every decision. Cidexar gives you a ready-made paragraph describing the step for your methods section, along with the setting you used and the numbers for your flow diagram.
When can I use it?
Soon. Leave your email and you’ll be among the first to know.
Be first to screen with Cidexar
Cidexar is coming soon. Leave your email and we'll let you know the moment it's ready.