Narrative review compares AI-based platforms for systematic reviews, highlighting their efficiency and workflow support.
Systematic reviews are essential for evidence-based clinical decision-making and identification of research gaps. However, conducting a systematic review is often time-consuming and requires careful coordination. In response to these challenges, several digital platforms have been developed to improve efficiency, transparency, and collaboration throughout the review workflow. This narrative review provides an overview and comparison of three systematic-review management platforms: Rayyan, Covidence, and AIPRA. Rayyan is a widely used platform that supports reference import, deduplication, blinded screening, conflict resolution, full-text management, data extraction, and AI-assisted prioritization. Covidence offers a highly structured workflow for screening, full-text review, extraction, quality assessment, and PRISMA documentation, with strong support for team-based systematic reviews. AIPRA is an AI-augmented platform designed to support a broader review process, including question formulation, search organization, screening, extraction, evidence synthesis planning, and manuscript drafting. Overall, systematic-review platforms should be viewed as supportive tools that enhance workflow efficiency, documentation, and consistency while maintaining the central role of human oversight in evidence synthesis.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Musleh et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: