Evidence synthesis services matched to your question

The most consequential decision in any synthesis project is made before a single database is searched: which design answers the question you are actually asking. Commissioners often arrive requesting a systematic review when the question is really a mapping exercise, or a scoping review when the decision at stake needs a pooled effect estimate. Forcing the wrong design onto a question wastes months and produces a document reviewers will reject, so our first deliverable is a method recommendation with the reasoning written down. That diagnosis considers what the question is really asking, how mature the underlying literature is, what the decision deadline allows, and which audience will judge the result.

Each row above is a design we run in-house. If your question points to a full systematic review, a pooled meta-analysis, a scoping review, a deadline-driven rapid review, an umbrella review of existing reviews, a synthesis of qualitative studies, or a living review that stays current, the same team carries it through, so nothing is lost in a handover between specialists.

Organisations commission a synthesis when a decision has to survive scrutiny. The brief differs by commissioner, and we shape the design, the depth of appraisal, and the write-up to the audience that will judge it. Professional bodies and charities increasingly join this list, commissioning syntheses to underpin position statements and campaigns that opponents will pick apart.

What unites these commissioners is accountability. A guideline recommendation, a reimbursement decision, or a funding call built on a synthesis will eventually be challenged, and when that happens the synthesis itself is what gets audited. That is why every project we deliver is reproducible by design: the search can be rerun, the screening decisions can be traced, and the certainty ratings can be checked against the underlying studies. A synthesis that cannot be audited is an opinion with a bibliography.

Whichever method fits, the standards underneath it do not change. Our reviews of intervention effects follow the Cochrane Handbook; scoping reviews, qualitative syntheses, and umbrella reviews follow the corresponding JBI manuals; and every project is reported to the appropriate member of the PRISMA family of guidelines, from the PRISMA 2020 statement for systematic reviews to its extensions for scoping reviews and searching. Where the question concerns effects, certainty is rated with GRADE, and our GRADE certainty-of-evidence service produces the evidence profiles a committee expects to see. Appraisal uses the tool the evidence demands, such as RoB 2 for randomised trials and ROBINS-I for non-randomised studies, applied by assessors who work with these instruments daily.

Standards are also the honest reason to commission carefully. A synthesis that skips appraisal, hides its search, or pools studies that should never be pooled is worse than no synthesis, because it lends false authority to a weak answer. We decline design choices that cannot be defended, and we say so at the scoping stage rather than after the invoice. The same discipline applies to timelines: we would rather narrow a question at the outset than deliver a broad one badly, and we tell you which trade-off you are making before you commit to it.

The process is deliberately front-loaded. Most of the decisions that determine whether a synthesis survives scrutiny are taken in the first stage, before any records are screened, which is why we put a senior methodologist on scoping rather than treating it as an administrative step. From there the work runs through the same disciplined sequence whatever the design, with progress reported in writing at each stage so you always know where the project stands and what has been decided.

1. 1

   Scope and method match

   You send the question, the decision it serves, and the deadline. We diagnose the right design, define the eligibility logic, and return a written plan with a fixed quote.

2. 2

   Protocol and search

   We draft a pre-specified protocol and run a documented, reproducible search across the databases and grey literature sources the design requires.

3. 3

   Screening, extraction, and appraisal

   Records are screened against the criteria, data are extracted into structured tables, and every included study is appraised with the tool appropriate to its design.

4. 4

   Synthesis and reporting

   We synthesise narratively, statistically, or thematically as the evidence allows, rate certainty where applicable, and write the manuscript to the relevant PRISMA guideline.

Every engagement ends in a complete, defensible package rather than a summary document. The exact contents flex with the design, but the spine is constant: the protocol, the full search record, the selection flow, the appraisal, the synthesis, and a manuscript written for the audience that will judge it. If you are unsure which document type your organisation needs, our guide to the main types of literature review walks through the options in plain language.

• A written method recommendation explaining why the chosen design fits your question
• A pre-specified protocol with eligibility criteria and a planned synthesis approach
• A documented, reproducible search strategy across the required databases and grey literature
• Structured screening records, extraction tables, and study appraisal with the appropriate tool
• A narrative, statistical, or thematic synthesis, with GRADE certainty ratings where the question concerns effects
• A manuscript or report drafted to the applicable PRISMA guideline, ready for a journal, panel, or board

We quote a fixed fee per project rather than by the hour, so the cost is known before any work begins. Behind the number sits the real analytical load: the design your question requires, the expected search yield, the number of outcomes, whether pooling or qualitative integration is involved, and how much of the writing you want us to draft. Send the question, the decision it has to inform, and your deadline, and a PhD methodologist will return a recommended design, a timeline, and a fixed quote with no obligation to proceed. If two designs could serve, we price both and explain the trade-off so the choice is yours. Everything from scoping to handover is done for you and delivered in writing, which keeps a precise record of every methodological decision for your files.