Your SLR is going to HTA. One missed study and the whole review gets challenged.
HTA agencies scrutinize methodology. They look for gaps. They question whether your search strategy was comprehensive, whether your screening was consistent, whether your data extraction was accurate. A single overlooked study—especially one with unfavorable findings—undermines credibility and delays reimbursement.
The error rate reality: Manual screening has a 10.76% classification inconsistency rate. That's roughly 1 in 9 abstracts potentially misclassified. When you're screening 5,000+ citations and only 5.48% make final analysis, errors compound.
The timeline cost: European market authorization to reimbursement averages 881 days—71% of that time comes after regulatory filing. Every month your SLR methodology gets questioned is another month of eroded patent exclusivity.
Your team did the work. Verification is insurance that the work holds up under scrutiny.
Screening verification
Full verification
Everything in screening verification, plus:
Catch the 10.76% before HTA does. Manual screening has known error rates. Verification catches classification inconsistencies before they become ammunition for payers to challenge your review.
Submission confidence. HTA agencies have seen incomplete SLRs before. They know where to look. Verification means you've looked there first—and documented that you did.
Timeline protection. A challenged methodology means delays, supplementary analyses, maybe a full re-review. At 881 days average to reimbursement, you can't afford months lost to avoidable scrutiny.
One verification proves the model. Start with your highest-stakes upcoming submission.

Cofounder & CEO, in previous lives he has worked on Stanford NLP's most popular open-source project, researched multi-agent AI, and studied Systems Design Engineering at the University of Waterloo.