Accelerate systematic evidence synthesis from months to days. Structured, auditable, PRISMA-aligned reviews — built on the same corpus you would construct yourself, but extracted and verified at scale.
You know the evidence needs to be synthesised rigorously. But the time and cost of doing it properly means reviews are often outdated before they reach peer review.
By the time your systematic review is published, the literature has moved on. New studies have appeared, old conclusions may no longer hold, and the field has already shifted.
3,000 results from your search strategy — how do you screen them all systematically? Title-abstract screening alone can take weeks of concentrated effort from two independent reviewers.
Ad-hoc search strategies, subjective screening decisions, and inconsistent extraction templates make replication nearly impossible. Reviewer disagreement is common and poorly documented.
Each stage generates structured JSON with confidence scores and provenance tracking. Every decision is logged. Every extraction is traceable to source text.
A complete evidence package ready for your thesis chapter, grant application, or publication.
Full methodology section, results with APA citations, limitations discussion, and evidence synthesis. Self-contained HTML with citation tooltips and verified source quotes.
Every included paper with 29 data columns: study design, methodology, sample characteristics, key findings, confidence scores, credibility tier. CSV export ready for your own statistical analysis.
PRISMA-style flow diagram with paper counts at each stage. Complete BibTeX and RIS reference files — import directly into Zotero, Mendeley, or EndNote.
Every extracted claim is programmatically matched against full text as an exact substring. Unverifiable claims are flagged. Evidence appendix maps every quote to its source paper and page.
Every engagement includes follow-up support. Submit sub-questions, request robustness checks, and ask for visualisations of the evidence landscape.
Send me specific sub-questions and receive cited answers drawn from the included papers. Every response includes inline citations with verified quotes — ideal for drafting specific sections of a literature review.
Robustness testing for your synthesis. Ask me to exclude studies by year, method, quality tier, or individually — and I'll tell you if your conclusions hold. Answers questions like "does this finding survive if we restrict to RCTs?" or "what changes post-2020?"
I provide visual evidence network diagrams showing clusters of agreement, lines of disagreement, and isolated findings. Papers are nodes, shared findings are connections, and methodological conflicts are visible fault lines.
This is not a black-box summariser. Every decision is auditable, every claim is grounded, and every confidence score is derived from explicit criteria.
The pipeline adapts to your research design. Each type activates different stages, applies appropriate thresholds, and produces the expected outputs.
Quantitative synthesis of effect sizes across studies. Full extraction of statistical results, weighted aggregation by study quality, heterogeneity assessment, and forest plot data.
Comprehensive, protocol-driven synthesis of all available evidence on a defined question. PRISMA-aligned screening, structured extraction, and narrative synthesis with quality assessment.
Map the breadth of evidence on a topic. Broader inclusion criteria, classification-focused extraction, and gap identification. Ideal for identifying research directions and grant framing.
Streamlined synthesis when you need answers fast. Focused search, lighter extraction, prioritised analysis of highest-quality studies. For conference deadlines and grant submissions.
Broad landscape mapping with narrative synthesis. Lower extraction depth, wider inclusion, emphasis on identifying themes and trends. Ideal for thesis introductions and background chapters.
Supervisor asks a new angle? Committee wants a different framing? Re-run meta-analysis and reporting in minutes, not months. The evidence base is already built.
| Dimension | Manual Systematic Review | Covidence / Rayyan | Evidensity Research |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeline | 6–18 months | 3–12 months (screening only accelerated) | 2–5 days |
| Papers screened | Hundreds (manual) | Hundreds (human-in-loop) | 300–2,000 (automated + auditable) |
| Extraction depth | ✓ Custom forms | Template-based (manual entry) | ✓ 29 columns, structured JSON |
| Evidence grounding | Ad-hoc quotes | ✗ Not supported | ✓ Programmatic substring verification |
| Disagreement detection | Narrative (if included) | ✗ Not supported | ✓ Structured with attribution |
| Reproducibility | Protocol-dependent | Screening decisions logged | ✓ Full pipeline audit trail |
| Follow-up questions | Months of additional work | Manual re-extraction | Minutes, same evidence base |
| Export formats | Word / PDF | CSV (screening data only) | CSV, BibTeX, RIS, HTML, JSON |
Comprehensive coverage across all configured databases and search strategies
Configurable methodology vocabularies, inclusion criteria, and credibility dimensions per domain
Meta-analysis, systematic review, scoping review, rapid evidence assessment, literature survey
Send your research question to evidensity.research@gmail.com. Evidensity will scope the evidence landscape for free — no cost, no commitment.
Send your question. I'll map the evidence landscape and estimate corpus size — no cost, no commitment.
Priced by research type and depth of analysis. Scoped after the initial assessment.
Ongoing evidence support for research groups. Multiple questions, priority turnaround, shared corpora.