Link reports to studies without discarding complementary evidence

Separate document identity from investigation identity

Cochrane Chapter 5 distinguishes studies from reports and recommends reconciling complementary or conflicting contributions.

Assign a distinct identifier to each retrieved document before proposing study links. Record the information that bears on the relationship: study location, recruitment period, intervention description, participant count and any explicit cross-reference. Use only the published information needed for the review. A shared author or a similar title is a clue to investigate, not sufficient proof that two reports describe the same people.

Build a relationship map with confirmed, suspected and unresolved links. Preserve the basis of each link so another reviewer can challenge it. Do not force a single study identifier onto a doubtful pair merely to simplify the dataset. Equally, do not count separate documents as separate investigations because the publication system assigned each its own persistent identifier.

Give each report a specific contribution

For a confirmed group, identify what each document adds. One may explain recruitment, another may report an early endpoint and a later paper may describe follow-up. The purpose is to assemble the investigation’s evidence, not to choose a winning document and discard everything else.

Create a field-level contribution record for the information the review actually needs. Name the report and location supporting each value, along with the population and observation window to which it applies. An early completion rate and a later return-use measure can both be valid while answering different questions. Do not overwrite one with the other merely because the second publication is newer.

Resolve disagreement without manufacturing consistency

When two reports appear to conflict, inspect definitions before choosing a value. One may describe everyone assigned, another only those who completed the activity. A participant count may refer to a subgroup or a different stage. Record the explanation when it is supported; otherwise preserve the unresolved discrepancy. Avoid creating a compromise value that appears nowhere in the evidence.

Agree a selection rule for the specific contribution if a discrepancy cannot be resolved. The reason might concern the required observation window or a clearly described analysis population, not the desirability of the estimate. Retain the unselected value and its provenance in the working record. This lets a later methodological review inspect whether a choice changed the eventual conclusion without reconstructing the literature search.

Hand off one coherent investigation record

Give the analyst a study-level record with its linked documents and clearly labeled contributions. Keep report counts available for retrieval accounting, but do not let them silently become the count of independent investigations. If a study contributes several outcomes, identify their relationship for the analyst rather than pretending that document linkage alone settles statistical dependence.

Recheck the map when a follow-up or correction appears. A new document may add information without creating a new investigation, or it may reveal that a presumed link was wrong. Preserve the earlier decision and its correction. The output should support both an accurate account of the evidence base and access to the report that supplied each detail. It does not certify the investigation’s quality or resolve every question about how its results should be synthesized.

Make the reasoning concrete.

A fictional review has an early report and a follow-up from one workplace study. Each supplies information the review needs, and the later document does not contain every detail available earlier.

Both contributions remain separately traceable in the reconciled record.

Take the questions into your next brief.

Use these prompts in your own notes. Nothing is submitted from this page.

1. Link

   What evidence establishes the relationship between reports?

2. Contribution

   What unique information does each report provide?

3. Scope

   Which population and observation window belong to each value?

4. Conflict

   What discrepancy remains and how is it handled?

5. Handoff

   Can the analyst trace each contribution without confusing reports and investigations?

Watch for the wrong conclusion.

• Equating a new publication identifier with a new study.
• Discarding follow-up evidence as duplication.
• Averaging conflicting reported values into an unsupported compromise.

Sources & scope

Workflows and explicitly fictional adult business examples are editorial analysis. Methodological statements and their applications remain source-derived. Cochrane-specific requirements are not universal marketing mandates. No real research operations or publication are performed.

• Cochrane Handbook, Chapter 5: Collecting data →Primary technical documentation · Supports: Supports study/report linkage and reconciliation of complementary or conflicting reports.