Systematic review software support for scoping and evidence mapping
ClinicalEvidence supports the work before and around a systematic review: scoping the question, testing the search, mapping registered trials and published studies, and exporting references to the screening tool your team already uses.
Where systematic reviews lose time before screening begins
A good systematic review depends on a well framed question and a search that does not miss key studies. Getting there takes iteration. Teams draft a PICO question, run test searches in PubMed, check registries for ongoing and unpublished trials, look for a known set of studies to confirm the search catches them, then refine and repeat. Each round means switching between databases and exporting results by hand.
Literature review software built for screening is excellent once you have a final search, but it does not help much with the open questions at the start. Is this topic already covered by a recent review? How many randomized trials are registered, completed or still recruiting? Which outcomes do they measure? Answering those questions early changes the protocol.
- Scoping questions answered by trial and error across several databases
- Registered but unpublished trials found late, or not at all
- No quick way to see endpoints and designs across many studies
- Manual exports between search and screening tools
How ClinicalEvidence fits next to your review workflow
ClinicalEvidence searches one index that combines ClinicalTrials.gov, PubMed, PubMed Central open access articles, the EU Clinical Trials Register and WHO ICTRP where licences allow, refreshed every day. You ask a PICO question in plain English and get a cited answer plus a trial table of every matching study.
Every sentence carries the NCT numbers or PMIDs it relies on, and automatic verification checks that each ID exists in the index and that the cited passage supports the sentence. You use the answer to understand the landscape, then export the matching records as RIS or BibTeX and import them into your screening tool.
-
Frame and test PICO questions before you register a protocol, see the PICOS framework guide
-
Map trials by phase, design, status, sponsor and results posted
-
Find registered trials whose results were never published in a journal
-
Check that known key studies appear in the evidence set
-
Export references to RIS and BibTeX for screening tools
What ClinicalEvidence does not replace in a systematic review
We want to be clear about this. ClinicalEvidence is not a substitute for a systematic review conducted to published methods. It does not replace dual independent screening of titles, abstracts and full texts, it does not perform risk of bias assessment for you, and it does not produce a PRISMA reported review.
The index covers trial registries, PubMed abstracts and open access full text. It does not cover every bibliographic database a formal review searches, and it does not include paywalled full text. Treat it as a fast, cited tool for scoping, search development and evidence mapping, and keep the formal search, screening and synthesis in your established workflow.
- Use it for scoping, search development and evidence maps
- Keep dual independent screening with your review team
- Keep risk of bias assessment and data extraction from full texts
- Report the formal review according to PRISMA
What you see for each review question
The trial table lists phase, population, interventions, primary and secondary endpoints, results posted, sponsor, status, enrolment, dates and locations. It sorts and filters by condition, intervention, phase, status, study type, date range, sponsor type, country and results available.
Evidence summaries show the level of evidence for each cited source, and intervention comparisons put two to four interventions side by side. Saved questions send email alerts when new trials or publications match, which helps keep a living evidence map current while the review is in progress.
- RIS and BibTeX on every plan for reference managers and screening tools
- CSV and XLSX for evidence maps and data checks
- DOCX with a reference list for protocol drafts and scoping reports
More on the export options.
Who uses ClinicalEvidence alongside systematic review tools
Academic review groups, HEOR and market access consultants preparing payer dossiers, guideline teams scoping new questions, medical affairs teams building evidence overviews and graduate researchers planning their first review. See how researchers use ClinicalEvidence.
Plans for review teams
Save 50% with yearly billing. XLSX and DOCX exports, shared workspaces, saved threads, comments and roles start with Research Team.
- Clinician 49 USD per month, or 24 USD per month billed yearly (288 USD), 200 cited answers and 1 seat
- Research Team 199 USD per month, or 99 USD per month billed yearly (1 188 USD), 800 pooled answers and 3 seats
- Organization 499 USD per month, or 249 USD per month billed yearly (2 988 USD), 2 000 pooled answers and 10 seats
- Enterprise 1 490 USD per month, or 745 USD per month billed yearly (8 940 USD), 6 000 pooled answers and up to 50 seats
Compare all limits on the pricing page.
Questions about ClinicalEvidence and systematic reviews
Can I run a full systematic review in ClinicalEvidence?
No. It supports scoping, search development and evidence mapping. Dual independent screening, risk of bias assessment, data extraction and PRISMA reporting stay in your established review workflow.
Which screening tools can I export to?
Any tool that imports RIS or BibTeX files. Every plan includes both formats, plus CSV.
Does it find unpublished trials?
It searches trial registries alongside the literature, so registered trials without a journal publication appear in the trial table with their status and whether results are posted.
Can my review team work together?
Yes. Research Team, Organization and Enterprise plans include shared workspaces, saved threads, comments and roles.
How current is the index?
The index is refreshed every day from the registries and literature sources it covers.
Map the evidence before you write the protocol
Ask your PICO question and see which trials and studies already address it.