The other way to deal with the situation is to try to get hold of more information. To do this you either need to find other reports of the same study, which contain more information, or try to contact the people who conducted the study. Make sure you've looked carefully for other reports - they will probably have come up in your search anyway, but you could do a quick extra search for other publications by the same author
Just as surely as we all make mistakes, people will disagree about the way they see things. So, when you have two people making decisions about including and excluding studies, there will be times when you come to a different decision about a study.
Some people like to measure and report how often this occurs as part of their review, to give readers an idea of how difficult the decisions were. The Cochrane Collaboration doesn't insist that this is done.
To resolve differences, you first need to work out why you came to different judgements. It may just be that one person missed a vital sentence. It may be that there wasn’t enough information – in this case you might need to put that study aside and wait until you’ve got the extra information you need. Or maybe one reviewer has special knowledge about a study that isn’t in the report – they may even have been one of the authors. If you really can’t agree, ask another person to help you resolve this. You might choose another content expert or a methodologist, depending on the area of your disagreement.
It is important to plan how you are going to resolve disagreements early on in planning your review and to ensure your review team are happy with the planned process. This will help resolve any possible later disagreement.
Getting your work into RevMan
Once you’ve decided which studies are included, excluded, awaiting classification (the ones where you needed more information), or ongoing (not yet completed), you’ll need to put them in the appropriate category in RevMan. This is explained in RevMan ‘Help’ under the heading ‘Studies and References’.