Our methodologists and how we work

We are a team of methodologists, information specialists, and review statisticians who work exclusively on evidence synthesis. We support the stages of a review that carry the most risk: framing the question, registering a protocol, building a reproducible search, running dual screening and extraction, assessing risk of bias, and synthesising the evidence narratively or with a meta-analysis.

The work is collaborative, not a black box. You remain the author of the review; we make sure the method behind it is sound, transparent, and defensible at every stage. Every project is led by a named PhD methodologist you can speak with directly, so you always know exactly who is doing the work.

Every engagement starts with your review question and the stages you actually need, not a fixed package. We confirm a realistic plan and a fixed quote before any work begins, so there are no surprises. Whether you commission the full review or bring us in for the search or the statistics, the standard is the same: reproducible, documented, and reportable.

We do not invent findings or ghostwrite your conclusions. We provide methodological and statistical support so the review is genuinely yours and holds together under scrutiny.

Every review we run is reproducible: the search is documented database by database, screening decisions are recorded with reasons, and the analysis ships with the code that produced it. Reporting follows PRISMA 2020, protocols are prepared registration-ready for PROSPERO where eligible, and the certainty of evidence is rated with GRADE.

Method choices are made for a reason, not out of habit. We pick the right risk-of-bias tool for each design, the right model for the synthesis, and the right effect measure for the question, and we can explain each decision to an editor or peer reviewer.

Every deliverable is 100% human-written by our PhD methodologists; we do not use generative AI tools for client work, and every document is original to your project and safe to submit to plagiarism checks such as Turnitin. Our authorship practice follows ICMJE recommendations and COPE guidance: you retain authorship of your review, and our contribution is disclosed through an acknowledgment, or co-authorship only where the contribution genuinely meets authorship criteria.

To keep the boundary clear from the first conversation, here is exactly where our work starts and stops:

• We will design the protocol, build and document the search, screen and extract in duplicate, assess risk of bias, run the synthesis, and draft a PRISMA-compliant manuscript.
• We will not fabricate data or results, predetermine a conclusion, or sign authorship guarantees that misrepresent who did the work.

We work across the review types that evidence synthesis demands, from a focused systematic review of interventions to a broad scoping review that maps a field, as well as diagnostic, prevalence, and umbrella reviews.

On the quantitative side, the methods range from the core pooled analyses most reviews rely on to the heavier modelling that complex evidence demands:

• Fixed-effect and random-effects meta-analysis of ratio and continuous outcomes, with heterogeneity quantified by I-squared and tau-squared.
• Subgroup analysis, meta-regression, and sensitivity analyses to test how robust the pooled estimate is.
• Assessment of publication bias through funnel plots and Egger's test, and certainty rating with GRADE.
• Specialised models including network meta-analysis and the synthesis of proportions and diagnostic accuracy.

If you are unsure which approach your evidence calls for, our guide to doing a meta-analysis is a useful starting point before you get in touch.