Systematic Review Tools

Systematic review tools are free, browser-based utilities covering the four planning-through-extraction stages of an SR workflow: framing a PICO question, drafting a PROSPERO-ready protocol, estimating hours and cost, and pulling structured data from PDFs. Together they replace the spreadsheet-and-Word-doc workflow that turns most reviews into 9–18-month timelines, while keeping every uploaded file on the user’s local machine.

  1. Step 1

    PICO Question Builder

    Frame a defensible Population, Intervention, Comparator, and Outcome question — and export it as a paste-ready protocol paragraph.

    Your PICO stays in your browser Coming soon
  2. Step 2

    PROSPERO Protocol Helper

    Draft a PROSPERO-ready protocol with all 22 required fields pre-structured. Paste straight into the registration form. Runs in your browser, never uploads.

    Your protocol draft never uploads Use tool →
  3. Step 3

    Literature Review Time Estimator

    Estimate hours, calendar weeks, and dollar value of your literature review across protocol, search, screening, extraction, synthesis, and writing — calculated in your browser.

    Calculated locally · nothing uploaded Use tool →
  4. Step 4

    Data Extraction Lite

    Pull study design, sample size, intervention, and outcomes from a research PDF in seconds — with confidence scores telling you what to double-check.

    Your PDF never leaves the browser Coming soon

Plan, register, estimate, extract

Four tools, one workflow. Each one produces paste-ready text for the next stage.

  • PICO Question Builder — turns five inputs into a research question, draft inclusion criteria, and MeSH search terms.
  • PROSPERO Protocol Helper — auto-fills the 22 required PROSPERO fields from your PICO.
  • Literature Review Time Estimator — converts your search and team setup into hours, weeks, and dollar value.
  • Data Extraction Lite — pulls study design, sample size, and outcomes from one PDF with confidence scores.

Start with PICO even if you have a draft protocol — it surfaces scope gaps that are hard to spot in your own document.

New to systematic reviews?

The systematic literature review guide covers when to choose an SR over a scoping or narrative review, PRISMA reporting, and what journals expect.

Frequently Asked Questions

Find answers to common questions about this topic.

A systematic review tool supports one or more PRISMA-aligned stages: protocol registration, search strategy, dual-independent screening, data extraction, risk-of-bias assessment, or meta-analytic synthesis. The four tools here cover protocol planning, time estimation, and data extraction — the stages where manual work bottlenecks most reviews. Screening tools like Rayyan and Covidence fill the remaining gap.
No. Every tool on this hub is free, runs in the browser, and requires no account. Your inputs and uploaded files never leave your device. The hub is part of Fynman’s free tier — Fynman’s paid desktop app picks up where these tools end, automating the screening and synthesis stages at scale.
The PROSPERO Protocol Helper generates text formatted to PROSPERO’s 22 required fields — paste it directly into the official registration form. Outputs from the other tools (PICO question, time estimate, extracted data) are formatted as paste-ready manuscript text for your methods section. The tools support your work but do not replace the formal PROSPERO submission step.
The four hub tools cover planning and extraction. Rayyan and Covidence dominate the title-abstract screening stage and integrate cleanly with the protocol and extraction templates here. EndNote, Zotero, and Mendeley handle reference management. Use the tool best suited to each stage — Fynman’s desktop app exists to bridge them with AI-assisted screening and synthesis.
Search strategy validation, dual title-abstract screening, risk-of-bias assessment (RoB 2, ROBINS-I, AMSTAR), forest plot generation, and PRISMA flow diagram automation. The Research Statistics Calculators cover forest plots and effect sizes. For screening, Rayyan remains the standard; for risk-of-bias, the Cochrane RoB 2 templates do the job.