RevAIse — open standard for describing, sharing, and reproducing AI-supported systematic reviews, organized by stages.
Metrics related to process efficiency and completion
A template used for registering systematic reviews, defining required and optional fields.
Root container for a systematic review. This is the primary object that contains all review data, stages, literature records, and artifacts. Every RevAIse document should have a Review as its top-level object.
Artifacts and quality assurance documents
Primary research question addressed by the review
Software environments used in the review
Performance metrics for AI assistance, extending general performance metrics with AI-specific measures
Providing suggestions or recommendations
Independent assessments have been completed
Single assessor completed the assessment
Assessment applies to a specific assessment domain
Assessment applies to a specific outcome
Assessment applies to a specific result or estimate
Assessment applies to the study as a whole
Bias is expected to move the estimate away from the null
Bias is expected to favor the comparator
Bias is expected to favor the intervention or exposure
Bias is expected to move the estimate toward the null
Extractors blind to each other's extractions
Resolution of conflicts or disagreements between reviewers
Result for a single protocol item or constraint within a conformance assertion.
The item does not apply to this review or record
Some constraints satisfied, others not applicable or unmet
Information about a database used for searching
Process for identifying and removing duplicate records
Group of records identified as duplicates
Exploratory search used to test or refine the review scope.
Template or form used for data extraction
Feasibility assessment for the proposed review scope.
Review scope is feasible if changes are made
Agreement metrics for a specific field or item
Definition of a field used in forms, templates, or data collection
Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality
Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation
National Institute for Health and Care Excellence
Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine
Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network
Statistics measuring heterogeneity in meta-analysis
Record of human modification to AI output
Only uncertain/flagged decisions reviewed
Participant assessing quality/risk of bias
Critical appraisal tool (e.g., AMSTAR-2)
Certainty-of-evidence framework (e.g., GRADE)
Conduct or methodological standard (e.g., Cochrane MECIR)
Reporting guideline (e.g., PRISMA 2020, MOOSE)
Risk-of-bias assessment tool (e.g., RoB 2, ROBINS-I, ROBIS)
Submission, publication, or dissemination record.
A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews
AXIS appraisal tool for cross-sectional studies
Risk Of Bias In Non-randomized Studies of Interventions
Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials
Methodological Index for Non-Randomized Studies
Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies
Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2
QUADAS-C for comparative diagnostic accuracy studies
Risk Of Bias In Non-randomized Studies of Exposures
Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology
SYRCLE risk-of-bias tool for animal studies
Question was merged with another candidate
A registration entry referencing an external registry, with full versioning support.
Policy governing registration requirements and constraints
Stage for managing review registrations and pre-registrations, focusing on referencing external registry entries rather than hosting registration content.
An immutable version of a registration, capturing the exact state at a point in time.
Report, manuscript, preprint, or supplementary document.
Approval or signoff associated with reporting.
Checklist documenting completion of a reporting standard.
Item-level status for a reporting checklist.
Protocol or workflow deviation disclosed in reporting.
Optional stage for documenting review reporting and publication activities.
Reporting standard used or planned for the review report.
Resolution through discussion to reach consensus
Count of a specific resolution method usage
Narrative prose sections of the review report.
Candidate review question considered during scoping.
Stage for assessing methodological risk of bias in included studies.
Risk-of-bias assessment for a single included study.
Systematic sampling (e.g., every nth item)
Optional stage documenting exploratory work before or alongside protocol finalization.
Match against inclusion/exclusion criteria
Resolution of conflicts between reviewer decisions
Inclusion and exclusion criteria for screening
Individual screening decision by a reviewer
A specific round of screening (e.g., title/abstract or full-text)
Execution of the screening stage, including deduplication and multiple screening rounds.
Search query executed against a database
Sensitivity analysis to test robustness of results
Assessment of a risk-of-bias signalling question.
Table summarizing meta-analysis results.
Review report, manuscript, or supplementary document.
The stage does not apply to this review.
Shared training information for review stages
Preparing review reports, checklists, and publication records.
Initial scoping to refine the review question.
Information specialist or librarian input
A single result reported by a study for a specific outcome, with full numeric detail.
Vote counting based on direction of effect
Stage for synthesizing evidence from included studies
Validation failure shows warning but allows submission
Protocol sections affected by the decision
Institutional affiliations of the author
Types of amendments allowed for this registration
Outcome components of the candidate question
Resolutions of conflicts between reviewers
IDs of the conflicting screening decisions
List of databases used for literature searching
Criteria used to identify duplicate records
Person(s) who performed the deduplication
Assessment of individual quality domains
Groups of records identified as duplicates
IDs of records identified as duplicates of the master
Reasons for exclusion if record was excluded
Areas of expertise relevant to the review
Outputs produced by the exploratory search
Exploratory searches used to understand the evidence landscape
Hash algorithms accepted for content verification
Modifications made by humans to AI outputs
IDs of records included/passed to next round
Fields commonly involved in this pattern
Per-item results from a conformance check
Keywords associated with the publication
Literature records associated with this review
Fields that matched between duplicate records
Scoping and registration details of the review.
Protocol sections affected by this amendment
Fields that may be completed in this template
Original conflicting decisions or values
Role(s) of the participant in the review
Few-shot examples included in the prompt
Publication, submission, and dissemination records
Filters applied to the search (e.g., date range, language)
List of literature records in the collection
Platforms where protocol will be registered
List of registrations for this review protocol
Manuscripts, preprints, reports, and supplementary reporting documents
Author, stakeholder, or governance approvals for reports
Reporting checklists and item-level completion information
Protocol deviations disclosed in reporting
References to model artifacts supporting the reporting item
Fields that must be completed in this template
Collections of literature records from searches
Reviewers involved in this screening round
Risk-of-bias domain judgements, including signalling questions
Per-domain risk-of-bias judgements, including signalling questions
Consistency checks performed during scoping
Decisions made while refining the review scope
Candidate review questions considered during scoping
Consistency checks performed during screening
Individual screening decisions made by reviewers
Sequential rounds of screening (e.g., title/abstract, full-text)
External tools used in this screening round
List of search queries executed against databases
Signalling-question assessments for this domain
Input from stakeholders, domain experts, librarians, or methodologists
Per-outcome results reported by this study
Planned publication or dissemination types
Training or calibration exercises completed
Commitments to transparency and open science
Rules for validating template field values
List of registration versions tracking changes over time
Stored result of checking a review or record against a declared protocol, including overall outcome and per-item results.
Protocol for the data extraction process
Quality control measures for data extraction
Study selection flow diagram counts and artifact references.
Reference to a versioned review protocol or guideline that a review or record declares conformance to (e.g., PRISMA 2020, ROBIS, RoB 2).
Protocol defining the registration approach and requirements
Quality control measures for the registration process
Statistics about the registration process
Protocol or plan for reporting and dissemination.
Protocol for risk-of-bias assessment, including tool and rater configuration.
Quality control measures for risk-of-bias assessment.
Summary statistics for the risk-of-bias assessment stage.
Protocol describing how scoping work will be conducted.
Overall statistics for the screening stage
Protocol defining the search strategy and approach
Quality control measures for the search process
Protocol defining synthesis approach and methods
Date when the database was accessed for searching
AI assistance configuration for this round
Minimum confidence score for accepting AI outputs
Reference to the AIAssistance configuration used
Strategy for handling AI errors or failures
Unique identifier for AI assistance configuration
Performance metrics for the AI assistance
Decision suggested by AI if AI assistance was used
Description of training data or fine-tuning
Whether links to supporting artifacts were verified
When the conformance check was performed
Agent or person that performed the conformance check
URI of the protocol the assertion was checked against
Unique identifier for a conformance assertion
Time taken to complete assessment in minutes
Number of items assigned to this participant
Average days between registration versions
Average time spent per record in seconds
Whether reviewers are blind to each other's decisions
Comparator component of the candidate question
Context or setting component of the candidate question
Intervention, exposure, or concept component of the candidate question
Population component of the candidate question
Number of candidate questions considered
Rationale for accepting, rejecting, or refining a candidate question
Name or identifier of the checklist standard
Whether reporting checklist completion was verified
Timestamp when the collection was created
Description of the collection's purpose or contents
Unique identifier for the collection containing this record
Name of the collection containing this record
Number of items completed by this participant
Initial or refined concept, intervention, exposure, or topic scope
Field ID that this field's visibility depends on
Confidence interval for the agreement rate
Whether conflicts of interest were declared
ID of the record with conflicting decisions
Default strategy for resolving conflicts
Number of conflicts successfully resolved
Overall outcome of the conformance check
Name of the tool that performed the conformance check
Version of the tool that performed the conformance check
Cryptographic hash of the registered content
Initial or refined context or setting scope
Country where the institution is located
Timestamp when the review record was created
Additional notes about the screening criteria
Current version identifier of the registration
Identifier of the current registration version
Statement on publicly available data, code, and other materials
Plan for data availability statements and shared data
Additional notes about the database or access limitations
Days from protocol creation to first registration
The screening decision (include/exclude/uncertain)
Date and time when the decision was made
Unique identifier for the screening decision
Unique identifier for the deduplication process
Method used for deduplication (automatic, manual, etc.)
Additional notes about the deduplication process
Process for identifying and removing duplicate records from search results
Department or division within the institution
Date when this template will be or was deprecated
Protocol, analysis plan, or workflow element from which the report deviated
Impact of the deviation on interpretation or conclusions
Location where the deviation is reported
Ratio of odds of positive test in diseased vs non-diseased
Method for resolving disagreements between raters
Limitations of the evidence included in the review
Implications of results for practice, policy, and future research
General interpretation of results in context of other evidence
Limitations of the review processes used
Digital Object Identifier of the publication
Number of duplicate records identified and removed
Ethical approval information if applicable
Number of records found during exploratory searches
Number of records considered relevant during exploratory review
Number of records found by the exploratory search
Number of exploratory searches conducted
Expected proportion of false discoveries
Proportion of false negatives among negative calls
Assessment of whether the planned review scope is feasible
Feasibility assessment of expected data availability
Feasibility assessment of expected literature volume
Feasibility assessment of the population scope
Known resource constraints affecting feasibility
Category or section this field belongs to
Formal definition of template fields (e.g., JSON Schema)
Whether flow diagram counts were reconciled against review data
Reporting standard the flow diagram conforms to
URL to access the full text of the publication
Number of records excluded at full-text screening
Unique identifier for the funding organization
Unique identifier for a group of duplicate records
Number of studies judged at high risk of bias
Confidence level in inclusion decision (0-1)
Initial number of records before any processing
Initial review question before refinement
Identifier of the initial registration version
Total number of records before deduplication
Collection of records to be screened in this round
Whether this field can have multiple values
Location in the review or record where the item is addressed
Message describing the item result, such as a violation reason
Identifier of a protocol item or constraint
Name of the journal or publication venue
Krippendorff's alpha reliability coefficient
Whether a librarian or information specialist was consulted
Number of studies judged at low risk of bias
ID of the record selected as the master/primary version
Maximum days allowed between version updates
Minimum number of independent raters per study
Minimum number of reviewers required per record
ID of the person who made the modification
A documented change or clarification to a review protocol.
Population, Intervention, Comparison, Outcomes, Study design details
Open access plan for reports or manuscripts
Overall proportion of records excluded (0-1)
Overall proportion of records included (0-1)
Overall risk-of-bias judgement for the study
Aggregate statistics for the entire screening stage
Description of what this parameter controls
Matrix showing agreement patterns between participants
Whether the search strategy was peer-reviewed
Agreement level achieved in pilot screening
Required agreement level in pilot screening (0-1)
Number of records for pilot/calibration screening
Average processing time per item (seconds)
Unique identifier for a protocol reference
Hash of protocol snapshot at registration time
Versioned URI identifying the external protocol specification
Type of publication (e.g., journal article, conference paper)
Unique identifier for this quality control check
Date and time when the query was executed
Additional notes about the query or its execution
The actual search query string or expression
Framework used to express the question, such as PICO, PECO, or SPIDER
Rationale for the review in the context of existing knowledge
Timestamp when the record was created in the system
Timestamp when the record was last updated
Number of records included/passed to next stage
Whether registration accuracy was verified
Whether registration completeness was verified
Rate of compliance with registration requirements
DOI assigned to this registration version
Timestamp when registration was last modified
Policy governing registration amendments and changes
Protocol defining the registration approach
Quality control for registration process
Type of registration (pre-registration, protocol, etc.)
Date when version was accepted by registry
URL to the registration entry in the registry
Name of the registry where protocol is registered
Date when version was submitted to registry
Version identifier assigned by the registry
Identifier of a related scoping decision
Date associated with the report document
Number of completed reporting checklist items
Total number of reporting checklist items
Identifier for a reporting checklist item
Location in the report where the item is addressed
Completion status for the reporting item
Text or description of the reporting item
Whether reporting received internal peer review
Protocol or plan for reporting the review
Scope or applicability of the reporting standard
Completion status for the reporting standard
Number of reporting standards documented
Summary statistics for the reporting process
Whether transparency statements were checked
Number of reports assessed for eligibility
Whether amendments require formal approval
Whether consensus is required between reviewers
Whether content hash is required for integrity
Whether DOI is required for registration
Whether registration must use a template
Person or process that resolved the conflict
ID of the person/process that resolved the conflict
Reference to the collection containing search results
Sample size in the comparator or unexposed group
Sample size in the intervention or exposed group
Name of the outcome this result refers to
Total sample size contributing to this result
Unique identifier for the systematic review
Type of review (systematic review, scoping review, etc.)
Full risk-of-bias / quality assessment for this study
Identifier for a risk-of-bias assessment record
Version or variant of the risk-of-bias assessment tool
Whether rater calibration was performed before assessment
Whether all rater discrepancies were resolved
Assessed direction of bias for this domain if evaluated
Whether inter-rater reliability was checked
Overall justification for the risk-of-bias judgement
Protocol for the risk-of-bias assessment stage
Quality control for risk-of-bias assessment
Summary statistics for risk-of-bias assessment
Risk-of-bias assessment tool used (e.g., RoB 2, ROBINS-I, NOS)
Research Organization Registry identifier for the institution
Unique identifier for the screening round
Human-readable label for the screening round
Additional notes about this screening round
Sequential number of the screening round
Statistical metrics for this screening round
Type of screening round (title/abstract, full-text, etc.)
Whether scoping work received peer review
Protocol or plan for the scoping activity
Quality control measures for the scoping process
Summary statistics for the scoping process
Number of records in each screening batch
Inclusion and exclusion criteria for the screening process
Final decision after conflict resolution
Order in which records are presented for screening
Protocol defining how screening should be conducted
Unique identifier for the conflict resolution
Timestamp when the conflict was resolved
Whether search reproducibility was verified
Detailed description of the search strategy
Narrative prose sections of the review report
Version of the SHACL shapes used for the check
Rationale for the signalling-question response
Supporting evidence for the signalling-question response
Similarity score between duplicates (0-1)
Software environment used for the review
Number of studies judged as raising some concerns
Unique identifier for the stage registration
Whether the input influenced the review scope
Number of stakeholder input records documented
Whether stakeholders validated the proposed scope
Total number of studies assessed for risk of bias
ID of the template that supersedes this one
Effect estimate, contrast, or estimand targeted by the assessment if applicable
Outcome targeted by the assessment if outcome-specific
Description of the template and its purpose
DOI of the template publication if available
Description of what should be entered in this field
Unique identifier for this template field
Section of the template this field belongs to
Unique identifier for the registration template
Date and time when the template was last updated
Organization or registry providing the template
Time spent making the decision in seconds
Number of records excluded at title/abstract screening
Vendor or organization providing the tool
Number of studies included in the review
Total records retrieved before deduplication
Total number of records screened in this round
Total person-hours spent by all reviewers
Number of unique records after deduplication
Timestamp when the review record was last updated
Unique identifier for this registration version
Version number in semantic versioning format
Metrics for measuring agreement between reviewers/extractors
Individual data point extracted from a study
A literature record representing a publication that persists across review stages.
Quality or risk of bias assessment for a study or item
Assessment of a specific risk-of-bias domain.
Stored results of conformance checks against declared protocols
Protocols or guidelines this review or record declares conformance to
Reference to a stage output in this or another RevAIse bundle.
Outcome for a single protocol item or constraint
A work session by a participant on review tasks
Study selection flow diagram counts and artifact references
Unique identifier for the literature record
Configuration for AI assistance in any review stage
Purpose of a quality or risk-of-bias assessment
Unit at which a quality or risk-of-bias assessment is made
Category of a review protocol or guideline
Status values for candidate review questions
Types of datasets used in systematic reviews
External tool or platform used in the review process
Methods for sampling items for quality control
Responses to risk-of-bias signalling questions
Base class for protocols defining how a review stage should be conducted. Stage-specific protocols should inherit from this class.
Base class for quality control measures across review stages. Stage-specific QC classes should inherit from this.
Base class for statistics collected about review stages. Stage-specific statistics classes should inherit from this.
Completion status for reporting standards and checklist items
A person participating in the review process
Base class for executing a specific stage of the review. Stages should extend this with their specific needs.
AI assistance configuration for a review stage
Concrete stage class this execution represents; used as a type designator
Roles that participants can have in the review process
Logical stages of a systematic review (typical flow).
Types of outputs that can be produced by review stages
Output file or log produced by a review stage (results, logs, code, visualizations).