Cochrane is updating our expectations for how results data are managed in intervention reviews, making study centric data and automatic analyses the expected approach for all new reviews.
This change aligns with our wider vision on making our evidence more usable, and follows a period of consultation with authors to ensure the policy and guidance are comprehensive, practical and flexible where appropriate.
What is study centric data?
Study centric data organizes results data at the study level, rather than at the analysis level. This allows the same data to be analyzed in many ways without requiring repeated data entry, for example, grouping studies depending on different characteristics.
Why is study centric data important?
As evidence synthesis becomes increasingly complex, study centric data is a key foundation for efficient, transparent, trustworthy and high-quality systematic reviews. It supports consistency, simplifies data management, reduces transcription errors, enables data reuse and supports more efficient review production. It also enhances interoperability with other evidence synthesis tools, including Covidence, and supports wider data-sharing initiatives such as the Evidence Synthesis Infrastructure Collaborative (ESIC).
Study centric data has been the recommended approach since April 2023, and we have seen a steady increase in its use. So far in 2026, 24% of published intervention reviews have used study centric data analyses, compared with 11% in 2025.
For more information on why this is important and how it links to Cochrane’s vision and mission, read the article on making our evidence more usable – interoperability in practice.
What's changing?
The key change is that study centric data and automatic analyses will move from being the recommended approach to being the expected approach for all new intervention reviews.
In addition, authors producing network meta-analyses can already begin reporting their data using study centric data approaches.
In cases where study centric data can’t be used, the previous method of data entry can be used. However, authors will be asked to provide a rationale for doing so. For example, at this time, updates to existing reviews that did not previously use study centric data is a valid rationale.
How feedback helped
Between June and August 2026, we consulted authors on the proposed changes to ensure that expectations were clear, concerns were addressed and supporting resources and guidance could be improved where needed.
Feedback highlighted positive experiences from authors already using the functionality and showed broad support for the policy, while recognizing that some legitimate situations may require alternative approaches. As a result, the list of existing scenarios where study centric data may not be appropriate will continue to evolve as new use cases emerge.
We are still working to improve our guidance further. If you would like to contribute, please continue to provide feedback.
What authors will notice
This change has been reflected in the policy wording and will also be reflected across the publishing process:
- Proposal form – authors will be asked to confirm whether they plan to use study centric data. Where they do not plan to use it, they will be advised that a rationale will be required.
- Writing your review in RevMan – authors will be asked to confirm whether study centric data has been used. Authors who select manual analyses will see a prompt explaining the policy and inviting them to choose one or more reasons from a list of existing scenarios or provide their own explanation. They will also need to include a summary of their justification in the review's 'Additional Information' section under the 'Data, code and other materials' heading. This information will not count towards the review word limit.
- Review template – the intervention review template will be updated to make it clear that study centric data is the expected approach for new intervention reviews and to indicate where authors should record any justification for using an alternative method.
With the implementation of this policy, we expect the list of recognized scenarios and rationales will continue to develop.
Support and training
We understand this might be new for many authors, and we want to make it easy for you. We have updated guidance in the RevMan knowledge base. In addition, we already have training on study centric data.
What's next
The new expectation currently applies to new intervention reviews. If a review is already past data entry and analysis then authors won't need to change their approach at this late stage and may choose to provide that as their rationale. Authors at or before data extraction are expected to adopt study centric data now.
For updates to existing reviews that did not previously use study centric data, this continues to be a valid reason for using an alternative approach. However, work is underway to improve support within our review management software, RevMan. Once tools are available to help authors migrate existing reviews and analyses to study centric data, the expectation will also be extended to review updates.
Facts Only
* Cochrane is updating expectations for managing results data in intervention reviews.
* Study-centric data and automatic analyses are expected approaches for all new reviews.
* Study-centric data organizes results data at the study level, not the analysis level.
* This approach allows data to be analyzed in many ways without repeated data entry.
* Study-centric data supports consistency, simplifies data management, reduces transcription errors, and enables data reuse.
* Study-centric data enhances interoperability with tools like Covidence and supports initiatives like ESIC.
* 24% of published intervention reviews used study-centric data in 2026, compared to 11% in 2025.
* Authors producing network meta-analyses can begin reporting data using study-centric data approaches.
* In cases where study-centric data cannot be used, the previous data entry method can be used with a rationale provided.
* Updates to existing reviews not previously using study-centric data are valid rationales for alternative methods.
* Authors will confirm use of study-centric data in the proposal form and writing process in RevMan.
Executive Summary
Cochrane is updating expectations for managing results data in intervention reviews, mandating the use of study-centric data and automatic analyses for all new reviews. Study-centric data organizes results at the study level, allowing for flexible analysis without repeated data entry, which is deemed crucial for synthesizing complex evidence efficiently and transparently. This shift is supported by a period of consultation with authors to ensure the guidance is practical and flexible.
Study-centric data is important because it supports consistency, simplifies data management, reduces transcription errors, enables data reuse, and enhances interoperability with tools like Covidence and initiatives like ESIC. Usage has increased; 24% of published intervention reviews used study-centric data in 2026, up from 11% in 2025.
The change involves making study-centric data and automatic analyses the expected standard for new reviews. Authors producing network meta-analyses can already use this approach. While existing data entry methods can be used if study-centric data is not possible, authors must provide a rationale. The changes will affect the proposal form, writing process in RevMan, and the review template to clarify expectations and justification requirements. Support, including updated guidance and training, is available through the RevMan knowledge base.
Full Take
The shift toward study-centric data reflects a systemic move toward optimizing evidence synthesis by prioritizing data structure over process, aiming to enhance trustworthiness and efficiency across the field. The observed increase in adoption suggests that the perceived benefits of reduced error and increased reuse outweigh the friction of adopting a new standard for the authoring process.
The consultation process, which incorporated author feedback, demonstrates an attempt at managing the transition by acknowledging legitimate exceptions rather than imposing a rigid mandate. This pattern suggests that successful implementation requires flexibility; forcing a single mode overlooks practical realities in diverse review scenarios. The necessity for authors to provide rationales for deviating from the standard points toward a tension between standardization and contextual application of best practices.
The impending rollout establishes a new baseline, meaning future quality assessment will implicitly favor study-centric approaches. This creates an implicit pressure on existing bodies of work and review methodologies to adapt, potentially affecting how older, non-study-centric reviews are situated within the evolving landscape of evidence synthesis infrastructure. The key implication is whether this move genuinely unlocks broader interoperability or risks creating a new barrier for those entities operating under legacy systems.
Bridge Questions: If system-wide adoption proves difficult for some existing repositories, what mechanisms should be established to support migration without penalizing historical output? How can the flexibility for rationales be managed effectively so that legitimate practical exceptions do not become an administrative bottleneck? What is the long-term effect on the development of alternative, non-study-centric synthesis methods?
Sentinel — Human
This text reads like an authentic update from a standards body, effectively blending technical definitions with policy implementation and consultation feedback.