SREP (CASRAI)

Systematic Review & Evidence Synthesis Certification — Professional

LevelProfessionalSRESREP (CASRAI)

Lessons

14 modules

Domains

Exam blueprint

Exam items

Per attempt

70%

Pass mark

Fixed, uncurved

Retake wait

Days

What you earn

The credential itself

Pass the examination and CASRAI issues this certificate and the post-nominal SREP (CASRAI), signed by the Programme Director and verifiable by anyone, permanently, from the code on its face.

CASRAI Certification

Certificate of Professional Competence

This is to certify that

Dr. Amelia R. Hartley

has completed the prescribed programme of study and passed the examination in

Systematic Review & Evidence Synthesis — Professional

and is admitted to the designationSREP (CASRAI)

Verify atcasrai.org/verify/CASRAI-SRE-2026-LBA139

Specimen. Issued as a signed PDF and as a machine-readable Open Badge; the holder and code shown are illustrative.

How it appears on your CV

Certifications

SREP (CASRAI) — Systematic Review & Evidence Synthesis, Professional

CASRAI·Issued Mar 2026·Credential ID CASRAI-SRE-2026-LBA139

casrai.org/verify/CASRAI-SRE-2026-LBA139

Every certificate is issued under the signature of Dr. Diana Nieves Castro, MD, Programme Director of CASRAI Certification, who sets the syllabus, blueprint and pass mark for this credential.

It certifies that its holder passed the CASRAI examination for this course on the date shown, scored against the blueprint and pass mark published on this page — and anyone can confirm it from the verification code, without an account and without contacting us.

About this credential

What it covers

Body of knowledge

Exam blueprint

The exam is assembled to these weights on every attempt. They are published before purchase because a blueprint you cannot see is not a blueprint.

Domains and weights8 domains · 6 scored items
Domain	Weight	Items
Review typologies and choosing among them1	10%≈ 1 item	≈ 1
Question formulation, protocol development and registration2	12%≈ 1 item	≈ 1
Search strategy, sources and search documentation3	16%≈ 1 item	≈ 1
Screening, selection and data extraction4	12%≈ 1 item	≈ 1
Risk of bias and methodological quality appraisal5	14%≈ 1 item	≈ 1
Synthesis: meta-analysis and synthesis without meta-analysis6	16%≈ 1 item	≈ 1
Certainty of evidence and interpretation7	10%≈ 1 item	≈ 1
Reporting, publication and maintenance8	10%≈ 1 item	≈ 1
Total	100%	6

Item counts are approximate. Each attempt draws a fresh form to the weights above, so the exact number of items per domain varies between attempts.

Syllabus

14 modules, 14 lessons

Every lesson and every learning outcome is listed. The lesson bodies open on enrolment; nothing else about the course is withheld.

14 modules · 14 lessons

Lesson material opens once you are enrolled. The full syllabus and every learning outcome are shown here so you can judge the coverage before you pay.

Module 1
1
1 lesson
1. Locked.Review typologies and choosing a review designLocked
  On completion you will be able to
  - By the end, the learner can:
  - Describe the defining methodological features of each principal review type and attribute each to the manual that governs it. [R]
  - Distinguish a systematic review from a scoping review on the basis of the question asked rather than the effort expended. [An]
  - Select a review type for a stated information need and defend the selection against at least two alternatives. [E]
  - Refuse an inappropriate request — a "quick systematic review", a review of a question synthesis cannot answer — and state in writing what can honestly be delivered instead. [C]
Module 2
2
1 lesson
1. Locked.Question formulation, frameworks and eligibility criteriaLocked
  On completion you will be able to
  - Convert a stated information need into an answerable structured question and identify where it cannot be answered by synthesis. [A]
  - Select the question framework appropriate to the question type and explain what the choice claims about the question. [E]
  - Write eligibility criteria operational enough that two independent screeners applying them to the same record reach the same decision. [C]
  - Diagnose a set of eligibility criteria for the specific ambiguities that will cause screening disagreement. [An]
Module 3
3
1 lesson
1. Locked.Protocol development, pre-specification and amendmentLocked
  On completion you will be able to
  - Write a full protocol covering question, criteria, sources, search strategy, selection, extraction, risk of bias, synthesis, certainty assessment, and planned subgroup and sensitivity analyses. [C]
  - Explain mechanically — not merely as good practice — what pre-specification defends against. [R]
  - Draft a dated, reasoned protocol amendment and locate it correctly in the final report. [A]
Module 4
4
1 lesson
1. Locked.Registration: PROSPERO, OSF, and the scope decisionLocked
  On completion you will be able to
  - State PROSPERO's scope in its own terms and determine, for a given review, whether PROSPERO will accept it. [A]
  - Select the correct registration venue for a review that PROSPERO does not accept, and justify the choice. [E]
  - Apply PROSPERO's timing rules to decide when in a project's life registration should occur. [A]
  - Explain to a research team why a scoping review cannot be registered in PROSPERO without describing the registry as unhelpful or the rule as arbitrary. [C]
Module 5
5
1 lesson
1. Locked.Search design: concept structure, controlled vocabulary and free textLocked
  On completion you will be able to
  - Decompose a structured question into search concepts and decide which concepts to search and which to leave to screening. [An]
  - Build a strategy combining controlled vocabulary and free text with appropriate truncation, proximity and field restriction. [C]
  - Diagnose a failure to retrieve a known-relevant record to the specific line of the strategy responsible. [An]
Module 6
6
1 lesson
1. Locked.Sources, syntax translation, grey literature, and search documentationLocked
  On completion you will be able to
  - Select databases and other sources appropriate to a question and justify each inclusion and each deliberate exclusion. [E]
  - Translate a strategy between two database syntaxes without silently changing its meaning, and demonstrate that it has not changed. [C]
  - Design and execute a grey-literature and trial-registry search and integrate the results. [A]
  - Document a strategy so completely that a stranger can re-run it. [C]
  - Commission or perform a peer review of a search strategy and act on the findings. [E]
Module 7
7
1 lesson
1. Locked.Screening and study selectionLocked
  On completion you will be able to
  - Design and pilot a two-stage screening process with dual independent screening and a documented adjudication rule. [C]
  - Calibrate screeners and measure and interpret agreement. [A]
  - Identify and correctly handle multiple reports of a single study and multiple studies in a single report. [An]
  - Record exclusion reasons at a granularity that supports the flow diagram. [A]
Module 8
8
1 lesson
1. Locked.Data extraction, derivation and the unit of analysisLocked
  On completion you will be able to
  - Design an extraction form driven by the planned synthesis, and pilot it. [C]
  - Extract in duplicate, resolve discrepancies, and record the resolution. [A]
  - Derive a required summary statistic from what a paper actually reports, and state the assumption every derivation carries. [A]
  - Detect and correctly handle the specific structures that break naive extraction. [An]
Module 9
9
1 lesson
1. Locked.Automation, machine learning and LLMs in screening and extraction: a contested areaLocked
  On completion you will be able to
  - Distinguish, in a specific proposed use, whether an automated tool is prioritising human review or replacing it, and explain why the distinction changes what must be justified. [An]
  - Specify, for a proposed use of automation, what must be pre-specified in the protocol and what must be reported. [A]
  - Evaluate a claim of tool performance against the requirements of the review in hand. [E]
  - State the current reporting position honestly, including what is unsettled. [R]
Module 10
10
1 lesson
1. Locked.Risk of bias and methodological quality appraisalLocked
  On completion you will be able to
  - Select the risk-of-bias instrument appropriate to each included study design and justify the selection. [E]
  - Apply RoB 2 to a specific trial result, working the signalling questions through to domain and overall judgements, with recorded rationale. [A]
  - Apply ROBINS-I to a non-randomised study of an intervention, including target-trial framing and specification of confounding domains before assessment. [A]
  - Distinguish risk of bias from reporting quality, applicability and precision, and explain why conflating them corrupts a certainty assessment. [An]
  - Carry risk-of-bias findings into the synthesis rather than reporting them and ignoring them. [C]
Module 11
11
1 lesson
1. Locked.Meta-analysisLocked
  On completion you will be able to
  - Decide whether meta-analysis is appropriate and state the clinical, methodological and statistical grounds. [E]
  - Select an effect measure appropriate to the outcome type and the intended interpretation. [A]
  - Specify a fixed-effect or random-effects model and state what the resulting summary estimate means under each. [An]
  - Compute, read and interpret a meta-analysis including its prediction interval. [A]
  - Investigate heterogeneity rather than merely reporting it. [An]
  - Construct and interpret a funnel plot with due caution about small-study effects. [E]
Module 12
12
1 lesson
1. Locked.Synthesis without meta-analysis; qualitative and mixed-methods synthesisLocked
  On completion you will be able to
  - Determine that meta-analysis is inappropriate and state the grounds. [E]
  - Execute a structured synthesis without meta-analysis to a defined method and report it to SWiM. [C]
  - Select and execute an appropriate qualitative or mixed-methods synthesis method and integrate strands with a stated logic. [A]
  - Recognise when the correct output is "the evidence does not support a synthesis", and write that. [C]
Module 13
13
1 lesson
1. Locked.Certainty of evidence and interpretationLocked
  On completion you will be able to
  - Construct a summary-of-findings table for a defined set of outcomes whose numbers reconcile exactly with the analysis. [C]
  - Rate certainty for each outcome separately and record a written reason for every adjustment. [A]
  - Distinguish a null result from an inconclusive one, in the analysis and in the wording. [An]
  - State what a synthesis does and does not license, and decline to convert it into a recommendation. [E]
Module 14
14
1 lesson
1. Locked.Reporting, publication and maintenanceLocked
  On completion you will be able to
  - Report a review to PRISMA 2020 and select the correct extension for the review type. [A]
  - Construct a flow diagram whose numbers reconcile with the search documentation, the screening records and the included-studies table. [C]
  - Distinguish limitations of the evidence from limitations of the review process, and report both. [An]
  - Plan and execute an update, and operate a living review. [C]

Assessment

How the exam works

The exam is closed-book and multiple choice. Each attempt draws a fresh form to the domain weights above, so no two attempts are the same paper and no answer key circulates. The pass mark is 70% and is fixed — there is no curve, no quota and no adjustment by cohort.

Scoring is immediate. You are shown your overall result and, for every item, the option you chose, the correct option and the reasoning behind it — whether you passed or not. A failed attempt may be retaken after 90 days. The wait exists so a retake is a second attempt at the material rather than a second attempt at remembering the paper.

Forms are assembled to the blueprint above or not at all: where a domain cannot yet be sampled to that standard, the exam declines to start rather than issue an unbalanced paper. Your material and progress are never affected, and there is no time limit on when you sit.

Passing candidates are issued a certificate with a verification code. Anyone can check that code on our public verification page without an account and without contacting us.

Certifying authority

Signed by Dr. Diana Nieves Castro, MD

CASRAI’s certification programme is academically and medically directed by Dr. Diana Nieves Castro, MD, Programme Director, who sets the syllabus and blueprint for this credential and signs every certificate issued under it.

CASRAI has maintained the terminology and reporting standards of research administration for over a decade. It assumed leadership of the CRediT contributor-roles taxonomy in 2014 and carried it through to adoption as ANSI/NISO Z39.104-2022, now in use by publishers, funders and institutions worldwide. This examination is drawn from that body of work.

What the credential certifies: that its holder passed the CASRAI examination for this course on the date shown, scored against the blueprint and pass mark published above — verifiable by anyone, permanently, from the code on its face.