Screening calibration round
===========================

StatMedAnalysis | Original downloadable worksheet | 6 November 2026

Test whether reviewers apply eligibility rules consistently before full screening.

How to use this worksheet
Select a deliberately varied set of hypothetical or public reports, including easy and
borderline cases. Review independently using the current criteria. Compare reasons for
disagreement, revise instructions where justified and run a new round. Keep calibration
separate from agreement measured in the full review.

Save a working copy and keep the original blank version. Use public, hypothetical or
aggregate information only; do not enter patient identifiers, credentials or confidential
records. Keep source evidence in your approved project workspace. Mark unresolved text
fields UNKNOWN or NOT REPORTED with a reason; never substitute zero for an unknown count.

Project/version __________________  Prepared by role/date __________________

Working fields
1. Criteria version
Response/evidence: _________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________

2. Calibration sample selection
Response/evidence: _________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________

3. Independent decisions and reasons
Response/evidence: _________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________

4. Disagreement categories
Response/evidence: _________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________

5. Rule clarification versus eligibility change
Response/evidence: _________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________

6. Updated examples in manual
Response/evidence: _________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________

7. Second-round results
Response/evidence: _________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________

8. Readiness decision and remaining uncertainties
Response/evidence: _________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________

Hypothetical worked case
In a fictional pilot of ten reports, reviewers disagree on three because one interprets
setting by recruitment location and the other by delivery location. Clarifying the
protocol definition addresses the cause more directly than reporting only 70% agreement.

Decision rule and limitations
Start production screening when material ambiguities have an agreed operational rule and
repeat review demonstrates usable instructions. There is no universal agreement
threshold that proves screening validity.

Decision _______________________  Remaining uncertainty ____________________
Next action ____________________  Owner / review date ______________________
Independent check and discrepancy resolution _______________________________

Official method or reporting reference checked 6 November 2026
https://www.cochrane.org/authors/handbooks-and-manuals/handbook/current/chapter-04

This is an original planning aid, not an official checklist, validated instrument,
clinical recommendation or certificate of expert approval. Apply the referenced
guidance to the specific design and record any additional requirements.