---
title: "10.2.7 Selecting the evidence"
canonical: "https://jbi-global-wiki.refined.site/space/MANUAL/355862769/10.2.7%20Selecting%20the%20evidence"
format: markdown
---
There are five steps within the selection (also known as screening) of evidence sources. This approach is identical to the process used in systematic reviews. Collate all results:  All records obtained through database searching and grey literature searching should be combined into one file. Reviewers will first import these evidence sources into a reference management software, such as EndNote. It is worthwhile noting that importing grey literature into reference management software can be problematic, and many reviewers utilise more manual approaches via Microsoft Excel. Remove duplicates:  Once all records have been imported into a reference management software, a search for duplicate records can be undertaken. EndNote, the SRA Deduplicator and Covidence can identify these automatically. Duplicates can be removed to a separate file and not screened. Ensure that you note the number of duplicates found, as this information must be presented in alignment with the PRISMA-ScR reporting guidance. Information specialists can support with steps 1 and 2. Screen titles and abstracts for potential retrieval of full text:  Ideally, all titles and abstracts should be reviewed for inclusion by at least two people, independently. If screening by two people is not feasible, other methods can be considered. For example, one person can screen all titles and abstracts, with another person checking a percentage of their screening to ensure accuracy. Or one person screens and another only screens the excluded evidence sources, to make sure nothing was mistakenly omitted. Some teams use the accelerated liberal approach, where only one person is necessary to include a citation, whereas two independent people are necessary to exclude a citation. Screening by a single reviewer is not recommended, unless you are considering a rapid scoping review (Campbell et al. 2025) approach to meet the demands of decision-makers, or if there is a need for a rapid approach to inform the next stage of a project. If you are unsure on including an evidence source at this stage, it is best to be overly cautious and include for full-text screening. Screen full text for review eligibility: This is a similar process to screening titles and abstracts.  Ideally, all full-text reports should be reviewed for inclusion by at least two people. If screening by two people is not feasible, one person should screen all full texts, with another person checking a percentage of their screening to ensure accuracy. Or, similar to titles and abstracts, another approach could be that one person screens and another only screens the exclusions, to make sure nothing was mistakenly excluded. Evidence sources  excluded at the full-text phase require a reason for exclusion . The list of excluded sources of evidence at the full-text stage and their reasons should be provided as a supplementary file within the scoping review report. Screen reference lists of included sources of evidence : Backwards citation searching (where you screen the reference lists of the included sources) and forward citation searching (where you identify references that have cited the included sources) should be attempted in all scoping reviews (Hirt et al. 2023). It is considered particularly important for concepts that may be difficult to capture, or terms that are not specific or have not been used consistently (Hirt et al. 2023). Although reference list screening can be conducted manually, another option is to use software, such as citationchaser or SpiderCite. When uploading the reference lists of the included sources, these software programs can then identify the article titles and abstracts. Consequently, the process of screening starts over for newly identified sources, and best practice is to repeat this until no further sources are identified. With that said, while this process is best practice, it is not always feasible. For example, in large scoping reviews, citation searching can identify thousands of additional articles to screen, and a team may not have the resources to continue. A potential solution is to only perform citation screening on key sources, or if including evidence synthesis within the review, this may identify further sources while limiting the search. If citation searching cannot be achieved, then this should be acknowledged within the limitations of the review.