Systematic Literature Review With Evidence Tables and Traceable Synthesis
Run PRISMA-style biomedical literature reviews with PubMed and PMC search lanes, screening logic, evidence tables, certainty summaries, and durable review artifacts.
Decision questions
What this solution is built to answer.
What does the literature actually support, and where is it weak?
Which studies should be included, excluded, or treated cautiously?
What evidence table can support diligence, regulatory, grant, or strategy work?
Where do conflicting findings change the recommendation?
Science and method
What can change the model or gate.
PubMed and PMC search lanes with query discipline.
Screening logic, evidence extraction, and PRISMA-style flow outputs.
Evidence tables and certainty summaries.
Publication critique patterns for methodological quality.
Synthesis into review reports, investment memos, or scientific briefs.
Method and decision gates
How the case is computed and reviewed.
| Workflow | Role | Artifacts |
|---|---|---|
| systematic-literature-review | PRISMA-style evidence synthesis | Review report, evidence table, PRISMA diagram, certainty summary |
| literature-search-patterns | Specialist PubMed / PMC query patterns | Search strategies, corpus summaries, PMID verification |
| publication-critique-patterns | Methodological critique | Study limitations, evidence quality, interpretation cautions |
Evidence inputs
Supporting evidence, rights and decision inputs.
Decision record
What remains available for review.
Deliverables
Evidence table with source identifiers and extracted fields.
Literature review report with methods, findings, limitations, and implications.
PRISMA-style flow diagram.
Certainty summary and caveat register.
Proof points
The literature specialist has PubMed tools, PMID verification, skill loading, and image analysis.
Evidence tables are designed as reusable inputs for later strategy and valuation work.
The workflow separates corpus gathering from synthesis.
Limits and review conditions
What this result does not establish.
Search and screening can reduce review burden, but protocol choices and final inclusion decisions require accountable human review.
FAQ
Common evaluation questions.
Does ARiDA produce only a narrative review?
The evidence table, search logic, and review artifacts are first-class outputs so later teams can reuse or challenge the synthesis.
Can uploaded papers be included?
Yes. Uploaded PDFs can be restored into the workspace and processed alongside search results when the workflow needs local documents.
Related solutions
Competitive Intelligence
Build competitive landscapes, TPP comparisons, patent-cliff views, market-share scenarios, and response plans from live web, trial, patent, literature, and database evidence.
Clinical Trial Intelligence
Analyze trial landscapes, protocol patterns, endpoints, enrollment signals, sponsor behavior, recent registry changes, and historical AACT structure.
Indication Expansion
Scan, assess, and sequence indication opportunities with scientific rationale, clinical feasibility, competitive density, IP context, market structure, and valuation logic.
Related reading
Build an evidence review that another scientist can audit
Protocol, screening decisions and evidence tables matter more than a polished narrative.
Parallel work matters only when the decision record survives
Specialists can divide a complex review, but the result needs one controlled case and a clear release state.
Design scientific decision systems around methods, not prompts
Stable calculators, evidence contracts and explicit gates should carry repeatable parts of the work.