(internal) links between sections would be very usefull. For example when refering to the same table in different sections.
It would be great if this feature has the option for
1) linking to another section
2) showing extra information in a pop-up screen (for example for medical definitions used)

This will just be a view of existing information. It can be used to compare the different options when one has multiple PICO questions with different comparisons, but same P's and O's.
We want to place them in one comparison-table so it is easier for the end users (and authors) to compare the alternatives.

change colors, design own css/skin

Retningslinjene for antikoagulasjon er utrolig vanskelig å finne ved søk på nett! Måtte gå via en link i en tweet....

This should probably done after the DECIDE framework has worked through how these PICOs should be written

When importing PICOs from RevMan or reviewing the PICOs made by others, it is sometimes easier to organize the PICOs in a different way. For instance, Cochrane often organises their PICOs on types of outcomes (1 PICO for effectiveness, 1 PICO for adverse effects). However, in MAGIC it may be easier to view both the positive and negative outcomes in the same PICO. Therefore it would be nice to be able to move an outcome to another PICO or to simply merge 2 PICOs into the same.

Currently you can export the Background information when you export a PDF (entire guideline). it would be good to be able to select include Background when exporting Recs or PICO's.

It would be useful if I could activate tracked changes and when I saved and closed the text box, the tracked changes function stays turned on - just like in MS Word. Otherwise it is reliant on working group members remembering to turn tracked changes on every time they make a change.

a) Picture and contact detalis
b) Affiliation

Prompting the admins to follow the steps in preparing the documents to ensure the quality.

Currently there are only 4 factors in the key info section, and Cost-effectiveness, Equity, Acceptability and Feasibility is pooled in with Resources. In some cases it would be good to write a separate text block for Cost-effectiveness, Equity, Acceptability and Feasibility.
It should be optional.

At the moment the status label choices are 'new' or 'updated' but also need 'unchanged' for those recommendations that aren't new or haven't been updated just yet (they may be down in future updates when new evidence is available). At present there are existing recommendations that haven't been updated (and aren't new) so they don't fall into the current status labels.