What is the most frustrating part of completing a systematic review today?

I’m building EvidenceFlow, an evidence-synthesis workspace for systematic reviews, and I would really value honest feedback from researchers, students, librarians, clinicians, epidemiologists, and anyone who has worked on a literature or systematic review.

Many teams use several tools across one review: a reference manager, screening software, spreadsheets for extraction, separate analysis software, and manual PRISMA reporting.

Which stage causes the most friction for you?

• Designing the protocol, PICO, and eligibility criteria

• Importing and removing duplicate records

• Title and abstract screening

• Blinded screening with multiple reviewers

• Resolving conflicts between reviewers

• Full-text screening and exclusion reasons

• Data extraction

• Meta-analysis and heterogeneity interpretation

• PRISMA 2020 reporting

• Managing files, versions, and collaborator access

What do you use today, and what do you wish worked better?

I’m especially interested in the parts of the workflow that feel repetitive, error-prone, hard to audit, or difficult to coordinate across a team. I’ll use the feedback to improve EvidenceFlow’s roadmap.