The problem
Starting to search before the question is fixed. A review question that keeps moving produces a search nobody can reproduce and inclusion decisions nobody can defend.
The literature on almost any question is larger, messier and more contradictory than it looks from the few papers everyone cites. Finding it systematically takes a search strategy across several databases, not a keyword in one. Sorting it takes clear inclusion criteria applied consistently, usually by more than one person.
Reviews are also slow in ways that are easy to underestimate. Screening thousands of titles, extracting data from hundreds of papers, judging the quality of each study: the work is careful, repetitive and hard to fit around everything else.
And at the end, many reviews answer the reviewer's question rather than the reader's. A decision maker needs to know what the evidence supports, how strongly, and what remains uncertain, on two pages they will actually read.
Who this is for
- Researchers planning a systematic or scoping review for publication.
- Groups that need a rigorous background review for a grant, a protocol or a guideline discussion.
- Nonprofits and organizations that need to know what works before designing or funding a program.
- Teams who have started a review and need help with screening, extraction or synthesis to finish it.
What we do
Scoping review maps what research exists on a broad topic and where the gaps are. Systematic review answers a focused question by finding, appraising and synthesizing all eligible studies with a predefined method.
- Frame the review question. We help choose between a scoping, systematic, rapid or narrative review and define the question with a structured framework suited to the topic.
- Write the protocol. Objectives, eligibility criteria, sources, screening and extraction methods, and the plan for synthesis, ready for registration where appropriate.
- Build the search strategy. Database-specific searches with controlled vocabulary and free text, tested against known relevant papers and fully documented.
- Support screening. Setting up screening in a review tool, writing clear decision rules, piloting them, and acting as a second screener where needed.
- Extract data and appraise studies. Designing extraction forms, extracting study characteristics and results, and assessing risk of bias with an established tool.
- Synthesize the evidence. Narrative synthesis, evidence tables and, where the studies allow it, meta-analysis with an honest look at heterogeneity.
- Summarize for decisions. A short plain-language brief of what the evidence supports, how certain it is, and what it means for the decision at hand.
Illustrative numbers, not from a real review. Squares show each study's estimate and weight, lines its 95% confidence interval, and the diamond the fixed-effect pooled result. A pooled estimate is only as trustworthy as the search and appraisal behind it.
How it works
Reporting guidelines such as PRISMA set out what a review should report. They are updated from time to time, and journals differ in which version and extensions they require, so check the current expectations of your target journal.
Discovery conversation
We talk about the question, why it matters, the audience for the review, and any deadline.
Scope and protocol
You receive a proposal, then we agree the review type, question and protocol together before any searching starts.
Search and screening
We run and document the searches, then screen in stages with agreed rules and regular calibration.
Extraction and synthesis
Data extraction, quality appraisal and synthesis, with interim tables shared at agreed milestones.
Write-up and handover
The review report or manuscript, the decision summary, and every file needed to reproduce or update the review later.
What you receive
- A review protocol suitable for registration.
- Full search strategies for each database, with dates and result counts.
- A study selection flow diagram and a log of screening decisions.
- Extraction forms, completed evidence tables and quality assessments.
- A synthesis, and meta-analysis outputs where appropriate.
- A manuscript draft or report, plus a short summary for decision makers.
How we can work together
- Project
- A complete review, from question to report, or a defined stage such as the search strategy or the synthesis.
- Retainer
- For organizations that need to stay current on a topic, with periodic updates to an existing review or evidence map.
- Hourly review
- A methods check of a protocol, a search strategy or a draft review before submission.
Timelines
Review timelines depend on scope: the breadth of the question, the size of the literature, and how many reviewers are involved. The size of the literature is often unknown until a pilot search is run, so the proposal may include a short scoping stage first. Typical ranges are agreed in the proposal.
Questions
It depends on the question and what you will do with the answer. A focused question about effectiveness usually calls for a systematic review. A broad question about what research exists calls for a scoping review. We will recommend one and explain why.
Sometimes, with care. Screening assistance can help prioritize records, but its accuracy must be checked against human decisions on your own topic, and its use documented. Our Research and AI page describes how we approach this.
Database access usually comes through your institution's library, and searches are run under that access. Where you do not have it, we will discuss options during scoping, including freely available sources.
For systematic reviews, registering the protocol is widely recommended and some journals expect it. Check the current policy of your target journal; we can prepare the registration text.
Yes, if the original methods are documented well enough to repeat. We rerun the searches, screen new records against the same criteria and update the synthesis.