Lightweight notes on user-visible improvements. Detailed engineering changelogs and operator runbooks stay internal.
Unlock a locked protocol to make amendments
Re-open a locked protocol when you need to change it
When a protocol is locked, its configuration and search strategy are frozen and can no longer be edited. You can now unlock the protocol from the configure page to re-open it for amendment — the recourse the “protocol is locked” message points you to. Previously a locked protocol could only move forward, with no way to make a correction.
Unlocking asks for a short reason and is recorded, so every re-opening of a locked protocol is attributable. After unlocking you can edit the configuration and lock it again when you are ready; your earlier locked versions are kept.
Available to the right people
Unlocking is available to team admins and lead reviewers — and the owner of a personal review — the same people who can lock a protocol. Reviewers and viewers cannot unlock.
Ecology and evolution synthesis is more complete and clearly reported
More ecology effect measures, reported on their natural scale
Ecology and evolution reviews now support the response ratio, standardised mean difference, correlation, coefficient of variation ratio, and variability ratio, alongside a generic option for pre-computed effects. These can be computed from reported means, standard deviations, and sample sizes (or correlations), or supplied directly.
Pooled results are now reported on each measure’s natural scale with the correct comparison point — ratios return to the ratio scale and correlations to the correlation scale — so estimates are harder to misread.
Dependent effects and moderators are modelled, not just recorded
Multiple effects from the same study (multiple outcomes, shared controls, or repeated measures) are analysed with a multilevel model that accounts for their dependence instead of treating them as independent.
Recorded moderators such as habitat, taxon, or stratum can now be fitted directly to see whether they explain variation, with an overall test of the moderators; the run falls back to the unadjusted result if the moderator model cannot be fitted.
When the information needed to link correlated effects is not available, they are treated as independent and that assumption is now surfaced on the result so the pooled uncertainty is not over-read.
Clearer scope and reporting standards
Ecology reviews follow PRISMA-EcoEvo and ROSES reporting standards and support systematic maps. Certainty stays narrative rather than clinical, and phylogenetic meta-analysis and moderator interaction terms remain out of scope.
Ecology and evolution synthesis is rolling out on a controlled basis to selected reviews while its analysis is validated further, so availability may vary as it expands.
Risk difference outcomes now pool from event counts
Absolute effects, computed like relative ones
Outcomes configured as a risk difference are now calculated directly from the events and totals each study reports and pooled across studies, matching how risk ratios and odds ratios are handled — including studies with zero events in an arm.
Results are reported on the absolute scale, where a difference of 0 means no effect, with no ratio conversion applied.
Previously skipped outcomes may now pool
Risk-difference outcomes that previously reported too few poolable studies will start pooling on their next run. A living review that includes such an outcome may report a change at its next scheduled update — expected, one-time behaviour as the outcome becomes poolable.
More accurate usage tracking across every review stage
Usage counts now reflect what you actually ran
The usage page counts one statistical analysis run per request instead of counting internal processing steps, so your monthly run allowance goes as far as intended.
Search activity is now shown as individual search requests, and AI activity from screening, extraction, appraisal, and synthesis is attributed to your account more completely — including resumed extractions and document retrieval that previously went uncounted.
Fairer review budget tracking
Review budget tracking now captures activity that was previously missed and applies the correct discount for reused prompt content, so budget warnings reflect real spend more faithfully.
Clearer setup for advanced reviews, with more reviewer checkpoints before results are final
Network meta-analysis setup is easier to review
Guided network meta-analysis now gives reviewers clearer readiness checks before a model is run. Treatment definitions, network connectivity, multi-arm study caveats, and inconsistency warnings are easier to review before interpreting league tables or rankings.
Ecology and evolution reviews have clearer scope
Ecology and evolution guidance now covers PECO, PICOC, and PO questions, ecology-style effect measures, dependent effects, multilevel synthesis, and the current controlled-rollout limitations.
Search, screening, and full text are easier to explain
The public docs now describe search coverage, citation chasing, screening status, full-text upload, and browser-companion capture in user-facing language, with a clearer reminder that search results still need screening before they become included evidence.
Review automation stays reviewer-owned
Advanced automation guidance now emphasises reviewer checkpoints: protocol-level changes pause for approval, generated reports are drafts, and risk-of-bias, certainty, qualitative, NMA, and ecology interpretations remain reviewer-owned.
Approved review changes now carry through to the updated result
One approval pass, one updated result
When an automated review pauses for decisions, approved changes can now be applied within the same run so reviewers see the downstream effect without waiting for a separate pass.
Safer handling for outdated appraisals
Outdated risk-of-bias appraisals can be retired after reviewer approval, with the prior state preserved for audit and disclosure.
Protocol-deviation records
Approved changes that affect the review are recorded so teams can disclose what changed, who approved it, and when.
A dedicated place to review proposed protocol-level changes
Review page for proposals
Protocol-level suggestions now gather in one review surface with plain-language rationales, before-and-after previews, and approve/reject decisions.
Clearer ownership
The app makes it clearer when a human decision is waiting and which reviewers can approve the change.
Automated review can check the analysis and propose safe next steps
A second pair of eyes
The automated reviewer can check evidence completeness, stale appraisals, source-backed values, and outcome consistency, then surface findings for human review.
Human approval for protocol changes
Anything that would change the protocol or evidence set remains a proposal until reviewers approve it.
Qualitative synthesis is easier to review and report
Agreement reporting is clearer
Coding agreement now leads with a statistic that remains easier to interpret when codes are sparse, with familiar agreement measures retained for context.
Cleaner qualitative workspaces
Project cards, study flow, codebook coverage, and re-run behaviour were tightened so qualitative and quantitative reviews are easier to distinguish and maintain.
Qualitative and mixed-methods reviews now run end to end
From question to confidence-rated findings
Qualitative reviews can now move from question setup through screening, full-text appraisal, coding, themes, CERQual confidence ratings, and Summary of Qualitative Findings outputs.
Reviewer-owned interpretation
The system can draft the descriptive groundwork, but themes, analytical findings, appraisal decisions, and confidence ratings remain reviewer-owned.
Living reviews are easier to monitor and act on
Clearer monitoring state
Living reviews now surface cycle status, pending studies, alert settings, and evidence-change prompts more clearly in the places reviewers already check.
Faster recovery
Failed cycles provide clearer recovery actions, while evidence-change alerts link reviewers to the relevant cycle context.
Risk of Bias, GRADE, collaboration, and reporting became more connected
Quality and certainty workflows
Risk-of-bias review, Summary of Findings, and certainty workflows were expanded so reviewer-validated judgements can flow into reports more consistently.
Team review operations
Teams gained clearer roles, assignments, notifications, conflict handling, and sign-off workflows for collaborative reviews.
Search and full-text improvements
Search coverage, citation chasing, reference-manager handoff, full-text retrieval, supplement handling, and manual upload workflows were broadened for everyday review work.