You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
I found myself pondering the other day as I delve into a systematic review of prospective studies on stress disorders. While ASReview undoubtedly streamlines the entire process, I still find myself sifting through numerous abstracts of studies with ineligible methodological designs. Is it perhaps feasible to incorporate features that allow for the highlighting of specific words in the abstracts to expedite the process? For instance, if I'm conducting a review of prospective studies, the ability to highlight terms like "cross-sectional" and "retrospective" would greatly aid in swiftly discerning and discarding irrelevant papers. Keep up the great work!
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Dear colleagues,
I found myself pondering the other day as I delve into a systematic review of prospective studies on stress disorders. While ASReview undoubtedly streamlines the entire process, I still find myself sifting through numerous abstracts of studies with ineligible methodological designs. Is it perhaps feasible to incorporate features that allow for the highlighting of specific words in the abstracts to expedite the process? For instance, if I'm conducting a review of prospective studies, the ability to highlight terms like "cross-sectional" and "retrospective" would greatly aid in swiftly discerning and discarding irrelevant papers. Keep up the great work!
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: