Reference · key concepts

Concepts and core ideas in Axelium

These are the terms you will see across the review workflow, from protocol setup and search through screening, extraction, synthesis, reporting, and living-review updates.

Questions and frameworks

A framework turns a broad research idea into criteria that can guide search, screening, extraction, and synthesis. Choose the framework that matches the evidence you expect to review.

PICO

Population, Intervention, Comparator, Outcome. Best for clinical intervention questions and comparative effects.

PEO

Population, Exposure, Outcome. Useful for prevalence, risk-factor, qualitative, and observational questions.

SPIDER

Sample, Phenomenon of Interest, Design, Evaluation, Research type. Useful for qualitative and mixed-methods reviews.

PECO / PICOC / PO

Ecology and evolution frameworks for exposure, intervention, context, population, and descriptive questions.

Project configuration screen — Fig 1The Configure page turns a review question into structured criteria and outcomes.

Search sources and study discovery

Search is intentionally additive. PubMed and ClinicalTrials.gov cover the core clinical workflow; optional source coverage can broaden the search for multidisciplinary, preprint, device, education, or trial registry needs. Results are deduplicated before screening and keep enough source information for transparent PRISMA reporting.

NOTE · Search is not inclusion

Records found by search enter the review as candidates. Inclusion is decided by screening and reviewer judgement, not by a search result merely appearing relevant.

Search tab with source options — Fig 2Optional source coverage lets reviewers broaden search while keeping deduplication and PRISMA counts understandable.

Citation chasing and pearls

Citation chasing means using known-relevant studies as seeds, then checking references, citing papers, and related recommendations for studies that keyword search may miss. Pearls are known-relevant papers you provide to improve search vocabulary and recall.

Use pearls before the main search when you already know must-have papers.
Use Discover after an initial set of included studies exists.
Review discovered records through the same screening workflow as every other source.

Screening, confidence, and conflicts

Screening applies the protocol to candidate records. AI-assisted screening can suggest decisions and rationales, but formal reviews should preserve reviewer judgement, exclusion reasons, and conflict resolution. Review modes support single reviewer, AI plus human, or two independent human decisions.

Screening turns candidate records into included, excluded, or unresolved decisions with reasons.

For teams, assignments and blinding help separate independent decisions from adjudication. See Collaboration for the team workflow.

Qualitative and mixed-methods synthesis

Qualitative reviews code passages from interview, focus-group, process-evaluation, or lived-experience studies into a codebook, develop themes, and rate confidence in findings with GRADE-CERQual. Mixed-methods reviews place confidence-rated qualitative findings next to certainty-rated quantitative effects.

CASP appraisal is the current qualitative appraisal path.
JBI-style appraisal is a planned extension rather than the current default.
Every final theme, finding, and CERQual judgement remains reviewer-owned.

Read the qualitative synthesis methodology

RevMan and Cochrane handoff

RevMan export supports included and excluded studies, screening reasons, and supported quantitative outcomes for Cochrane-style authoring. Risk-of-bias assessment exists in Axelium, but the current RevMan quality export is limited; authors should check and complete any RevMan-specific quality fields after import.

Endpoints and effect measures

Endpoints are the specific outcomes you plan to analyse. Effect measures describe how each endpoint is represented across studies: for example risk ratio, odds ratio, hazard ratio, mean difference, standardised mean difference, prevalence, response ratio, or correlation. Choose measures before extraction when possible.

Read the effect-measures guide

Evidence provenance and audit trail

Values, decisions, and report evidence should be traceable back to the source documents and reviewer actions that support them. Axelium keeps source snippets, reviewer decisions, protocol changes, sign-offs, and generated evidence together so teams can explain how a conclusion was reached.

Data lineage panel — Fig 3Lineage views help reviewers trace results back to studies, extracted values, and source evidence.

Living reviews

A living review monitors for new evidence after the initial review is complete. New records should return through screening, full-text retrieval, extraction, analysis, and reviewer approval. Updates should never silently overwrite a reviewed conclusion.

WARN · Network meta-analysis boundary

NMA support covers guided setup and one-off network synthesis. Recurring living-review NMA refresh is a separate workflow and should not be assumed unless explicitly enabled for your review.

Notifications and settings

Notifications cover assignments, mentions, conflict requests, sign-off requests, living-review updates, and account events. Review your notification preferences before starting a team or living review so the right people receive the right prompts.

Reports and evidence board

The Evidence Board collects the plots, tables, notes, decisions, and snapshots that should support a report. Generated drafts are starting points for reviewer editing, not final manuscripts. Always compare the report against the protocol, included studies, and finalised evidence.

Common export formats include DOCX for narrative editing, XLSX for structured tables, RIS/BibTeX for reference managers, and RevMan for supported Cochrane handoff scenarios.

How it works

Getting Started

Collaboration

Core Concepts