Managing and screening thousands of studies, extracting data, and coordinating across teams can quickly become overwhelming. Even if you know how to conduct a systematic literature review, doing it manually risks delays and errors.
That is where systematic review software comes in. The tools help streamline work processes, make information more transparent, and lower duration requirements.
This article lists 20 tools divided into academic, commercial, open-source, and specialty groups. It guides all users, including beginners in review research, to select the right software, accelerating systematic review operations while improving efficiency.
What is systematic review software, and why does it matter?
Definition and scope
The systematic review software, or simply the software used in structured and stepwise systematic review process, comprises digital tools used in the systematic review process. They eventually allow the researchers to manage tasks such as screening studies, data extraction, coding, quality assessment, and results reports. Generally, these platforms are used for working alone or with a team and provide consistency, thus minimizing human error and keeping things organized.
Such tools serve particularly well for newcomers to the state of the art who seek to understand whether they have just discovered the state of the art when they find it or are looking backward in time. The second one allows them to organize the complex workflow to ensure that every step corresponds to the authorized guidelines, such as PRISMA or Cochrane.
Role in modern research
As a result, systematic reviews need to be as efficient, transparent, and reproducible as possible to be used as the basis for evidence-based practice. Such systematic review software is offered by providing the best support to these priorities.
- Documenting decisions for full audibility
- Standardizing workflows to reduce bias
- Enabling collaboration across institutions
- Speeding up time-intensive steps like screening and data extraction
In short, these tools are no longer optional, they are fundamental to producing high-quality, publishable, and policy-relevant reviews in today’s research landscape.
Core features to look for in systematic review software
Screening and filtering
One of the most time-consuming steps in a review is screening titles, abstracts, and full texts. Software designed for this purpose allows you to flag studies quickly, include, exclude, or tag them, often with keyboard shortcuts, batch decisions, and built-in conflict resolution. However, many tools support AI-assisted prioritization to speed this stage up without losing precision, much faster than with plans put on Excel.
Data extraction and coding
Good software goes beyond screening, it supports customizable data extraction forms that let you collect precisely what your review requires. Many platforms also enable automatic coding or tagging based on keywords, which helps standardize how data is categorized. This is especially valuable for large teams needing consistency across reviewers or when preparing for meta-analysis.
Collaboration and workflow tracking
Systematic reviews often involve multiple reviewers, editors, and stakeholders. Software with real-time collaboration features, comment threads, task assignments, and workflow dashboards helps everyone stay aligned. Audit trails and version histories are also critical for documenting who made decisions and when which improves transparency and compliance with reporting standards.
Bibliographic integration
An essential quality of efficient tools is their compatibility with bibliographic databases and tools. Platforms that connect with EndNote, Zotero, or PubMed APIs make it easier to import references, keep using the exact search through the review, and manage citations. This integration saves time and avoids dirt on your reference data.
Overview of 20 systematic review software tools
With so many software tools available, knowing which one is the right fit can be difficult. To help you choose wisely, we've grouped 20 of the most widely used systematic review software tools into four categories: academic-focused platforms, commercial tools, open-source options, and specialty software.
Each category is tailored to different user needs, whether you prioritize transparency, scalability, budget, or field-specific features. We aim to help you match tools to your workflow based on core functions, usability, cost, and the type of review you're conducting.
Academic-focused platforms
These software programs are created for systematic reviews and are used by universities, research institutes, and specialized collaborations. These platforms have been designed especially for research researchers, so scientific rigor, large-scale review, and academic standards are the priorities.
They stand out for their emphasis on the following:
- Transparency: Tools in this category provide detailed audit trails, version histories, and precise documentation of every inclusion, exclusion, and coding decision—ensuring that your review process is reproducible and defensible.
- Open collaboration: These are for distributed research teams or student supervisor setups, as they allow several users to work on the platform simultaneously, assign roles, resolve screening conflicts, and share real-time progress.
- Academic-focused tools are most prevalent in supporting workflows for using the PRISMA, Cochrane, or PROSPERO specifications to achieve compliance with publishing and ethical requirements.
EPPI-Reviewer
EPPI-Reviewer is designed to support automated and machine learning-assisted screening and complex, customizable coding frameworks. Mixed methods and large-scale academic reviews are ideal tasks for this.
Rayyan
Rayyan features a clean interface with blinding and conflict solutions to support fast team screenings. This is particularly useful because it's perfect out of the box and easy to use for new reviewers and distributed teams.
Colandr
Colandr is an open-source tool for AI-assisted screening. It is easy to use and includes distinct workflows for multiple reviewers. It is an excellent choice for a small research team that requires a free solution.
DistillerSR (academic license)
The commercial version has more features than the academic version; it supports only unstructured screening and documentation. It is ideal for academic reviews, requires adherence, and allows you to track all that needs to be done.
Abstrackr
It uses predictive algorithms and allows crowd-sourced screening to prioritize abstracts efficiently. While it lacks full workflow support, it's valuable for quick, early-stage screening in extensive reviews.
Commercial platforms
Commercial systematic review software is not similar in structure to academic-focused tools. It is designed for a high volume of reviews and large research departments or entire institutions managing large, enthusiastic teams behind the systematic reviews. Often, these platforms are strong, familiar, and supported and offer automation, audit-ready reporting, and compliance with regulatory or publishing standards.
If you require reliability, massive customer tuning, and lots of project support, you can't beat that. They are a good fit for integrations with institutional systems and APIs, such as clinical, policy, or corporate reviews.
Covidence
Covidence has a clean interface, is easy to use, and is Cochrane-friendly. It is suitable for clinical and academic teams to support PRISMA workflows and efficiently track inclusion/exclusion decisions.
DistillerSR
Automation tools: Any reporting is audit-ready, and the data extraction form is customizable. It is strong for institutions and industry projects and is the primary target for high-volume reviews. It will satisfy regulatory standards.
JBI SUMARI
JBI SUMARI is aligned with Joanna Briggs Institute methodology and includes built-in critical appraisal and synthesis tools. It supports mixed methods reviews, so it is appropriate for researchers with qualitative and quantitative data.
RevMan Web
RevMan Web directly handles Cochrane systems, meta-analysis, and structured statistical output. This will be ideal for Cochrane reviewers and others who need compatibility with complex health data.
LitStream
LitStream's dynamic collaboration dashboard supports grey literature tracking and AI but specializes in prioritizing based on AI. It works best for teams that have to work with many evidence sources in a significant review or similar project.
Open-source or free tools
Not every project has access to enterprise-level tools, and fortunately, many excellent systematic review software options are freely available. These powerful but open and low-cost platforms are ideal for individual researchers, graduate students, or small teams that require potent features without the cost of licensing.
They may be lacking in a customer-centric stance or polish, but they more than make for this with the following:
- Flexibility: Customization options and adaptable workflows
- Community support: Active development, user forums, and open documentation
- Ease of deployment: Many can be accessed online without installation or used with existing tools such as reference managers.
These are great tools for researchers from low-resource settings, for educating others on conducting a systematic literature review, and for projects where transparency and reproducibility are most important.
RobotAnalyst
RobotAnalyst uses a machine learning-based prioritization engine to rank studies during screening. It's particularly effective for managing ample evidence sets and speeding up early-stage review work.
ASReview
Active learning is applied to screening via ASReview, which allows reviewers to train the model by doing their jobs. The algorithm selection is transparent, providing full reproducibility for methodologically rigorous projects.
CADIMA
CADIMA's strong documentation features make it a good support for the whole review pathway, from protocol planning and review to data reporting. It helps environmental and agricultural reviews, in which a structured step-by-step process should be provided.
Metta
Metta helps manage literature searches by aggregating references from multiple databases and eliminating duplicates. While it doesn't offer screening, it's a helpful companion tool for preparing data for review platforms.
SRA-Helper for EndNote
SRA-Helper makes the inclusion and exclusion criteria directly available on the reference management system, EndNote. As we're already working in the EndNote environment, this is a practical add-on.
Specialty software
Many systematic review software tools are designed to support the provision of all general review workflows and, to some extent, those dedicated to supporting specialized workflows. These tools help review unique, qualitative, or mixed-methods data structures or those that need ongoing updating, as in living reviews.
These tools typically offer:
- Data sharing, tagging, or qualitative coding
- Functionality with advanced functionality
- Living reviews that is, updates with version control and frequent updates.
- Structured visualization and reporting for the development of policy or clinical guideline
SRDR+ (Systematic Review Data Repository Plus)
SRDR+ allows researchers to store, share, and reuse extracted data across systematic reviews. It promotes transparency and reproducibility, making it ideal for collaborative and open science projects.
Sysrev
Sysrev provides machine learning flows to help with tagging and classification and flexible, user-defined workflows. An open-access model and dynamic look and feel suit evolving or exploratory review projects.
Nest
Nest builds live systematic reviews, provides version control, and automatically updates evidence sets. It is flawless for research areas that move quickly and need most updates.
INSIGHT
INSIGHT provides interactive visualizations and links to protocols, making it useful for policy—and guideline-focused reviews. It also supports clear communication of findings to stakeholders and decision-makers.
Synthesi.SR
For qualitative and mixed methods reviews, Synthesi.SR has been actively designed for various synthesis types, more modularly, and with the ability to combine other synthesis packages. Being multidisciplinary/multi-author friendly, it's perfect for its team coordination tools.
Pros and cons of using software for systematic reviews
Advantages
Systematic review software offers several key benefits that can transform the review process:
- Saves time by automating tasks like citation screening, deduplication, and tracking decisions
- Reduces human error through structured workflows and clear decision logs
- Improves collaboration with features like real-time updates, task assignments, and conflict resolution
- Boosts transparency and reproducibility by documenting every step of the process
- Enhances overall quality and efficiency of your systematic review strategy
These tools streamline complex workflows, making reviews faster, more reliable, and easier to manage, especially in team-based settings.
Limitations
Despite their strengths, these tools aren't without drawbacks. Limitations of systematic review software are:
- High licensing costs can be a barrier for independent researchers or smaller institutions
- Steep learning curves with some tools, especially those using advanced AI or complex configurations
- Limited versatility, not all platforms support mixed methods or qualitative synthesis
- Integration issues with reference managers or analysis tools may hinder workflow
- Risk of inefficiency if the tool is chosen without aligning with project needs
While powerful, these tools aren't one-size-fits-all, careful selection is key to avoiding unnecessary complications.
How to choose the right software for your review
Needs-based assessment
Selecting the right tool starts with understanding your specific project needs. Consider the following:
- Scope of your review: Broad scoping reviews may need more flexible tools; narrow clinical reviews might benefit from Cochrane-compatible platforms.
- Team size and structure: Are you working alone or coordinating multiple reviewers across institutions?
- Available funding: Free or open-source tools best fit low-budget projects.
- Level of expertise: Beginners require simpler interfaces; advanced teams may prefer customizable automation-ready options.
When you align your choice with these factors, you reinforce your systematic review strategy, and the research will improve.
Testing and comparison
Before committing to a platform, use free trials, demo accounts, or sandbox environments. Testing usability, speed, and compatibility with your team's workflow is essential, especially if you plan to combine tools. Compare interface design, collaboration features, and export options to identify the most practical fit. Don't underestimate the learning curve, some powerful tools require onboarding time.
Can multiple software tools be used in one review?
Combining tools effectively
Tools joined together can be potent, provided a tool excels in one thing but is less than impressive in another. In turn, you might use Rayyan for screening, EPPI-Reviewer for data extraction, and Covidence for collaboration. This allows you to pick the right solution for every stage without being limited by one system's shortcomings.
Challenges and considerations
However, tools used in parallel have their challenges. The biggest issue with data compatibility is that platforms may use different file formats or export limitations. Manually setting up loading references is omitted; importing/exporting references between systems may be needed, and some workflows can be split, so coordination is required to incorporate multiple systems. Early in your integration, plan your integration and test how your tools will interact in the workflow before you start your review.
Real-world use cases and common workflows
Clinical or Healthcare Reviews
Case Study: Congress of Neurological Surgeons (CNS):
The CNS faced challenges in developing clinical guidelines due to the complexity of managing multiple stakeholders and large volumes of literature. By transferring to DistillerSR, here, they accomplished real-time collaboration, speedy reference screening, and a tremendous increase in systematic literature review output. The result was a quadrupling of clinical guideline development efficiency.
Policy or Social Science Reviews
Case Study: University of Ottawa:
The University of Ottawa sought to enhance evidence-based research across various academic disciplines, including social sciences and international development. By adopting Covidence, they streamlined their systematic review processes, here, enabling higher quality research outputs and fostering a culture of evidence-based practice beyond health sciences.
Multidisciplinary or Team-Based Reviews
Case Study: Top-Ranked U.S. Teaching Hospital:
One of the largest US teaching hospitals sought to enhance its systematic review management in response to shrinking library staffing and rising research demands. Project following between clinical and nursing staff was easy due to Covidence. The easy-to-use interface helped complete the evidence projects satisfactorily across several disciplines, which was achieved with research skills.
These cases, here, demonstrate the effectiveness of their use and contribution to improving organization, teamwork, and the accumulation of evidence.
Staying up to date with systematic review technologies
Keeping pace with innovation
The field of systematic review software evolves quickly. New platforms emerge AI models improve, and integration with databases and analytics tools becomes more sophisticated. Staying current with these advancements is essential—especially as automation and living reviews become standard in many disciplines.
Keeping your systematic review strategy up to date means more than using the latest tool—it means adopting more efficient, transparent, and scalable workflows that align with the future of research.
Sources of updates and insights
To stay informed, consider the following trusted sources:
- Academic societies like Cochrane, JBI, and the Campbell Collaboration
- Software newsletters from tools like Rayyan, DistillerSR, and ASReview
- Forums and communities such as the Systematic Review Toolbox or LinkedIn groups
- Research conferences (e.g., G-I-N Conference, Evidence Synthesis International, or Cochrane Colloquium)
Subscribing to these resources can help you track new features, case studies, and real-world applications, ensuring your tools and methods stay adequate and relevant.
Why the right tools matter for professional systematic review writing
Tools alone aren't enough, even with the most advanced systematic review software. A high-quality review still requires domain expertise, methodological rigor, and a clear understanding of evidence standards. The software can support the process but can't make complex decisions, interpret nuanced data, or ensure your review meets publishing and policy standards.
Many researchers turn to systematic review writing services for professional guidance. A skilled team ensures your protocol is solid, your screening process is defensible, and your data synthesis aligns with best practices.
Ready to boost your review with expert support? prosystematicreviewwritingservices.com offers end-to-end help, from protocol design to final reporting. Whether it's a clinical guideline, academic paper, or policy review, we ensure methodological rigor and faster, publication-ready results.
