Hey everyone — I’ve been evaluating systematic review tools for a healthcare research team, and I keep coming back to the same question: how does Consensus actually stack up against Rayyan?
Rayyan is pretty much the default for a lot of academics doing screening and deduplication, but I’ve heard Consensus is gaining traction with its AI-powered features. For those who’ve used both:
- How does the **screening workflow** compare in terms of speed and ease of use? Rayyan’s highlight and tag system is fast, but I’ve read Consensus can suggest exclusions based on your criteria.
- What about **collaboration**? Rayyan’s free tier allows multiple reviewers, which is huge for student teams. Does Consensus handle team reviews smoothly?
- And the big one: **accuracy**. Has anyone benchmarked the AI-assisted screening against manual double-screening? I’m wary of over-relying on automation if it misses key papers.
Our team mostly works on clinical meta-analyses, so precision is critical. We need clear reasons for inclusion/exclusion, good audit trails, and smooth export to tools like RevMan.
If you’ve switched from one to the other, what was the breaking point? Or do you use them for different stages?
Cheers, Carla
Benchmarking my way to better decisions