Launching today

EvidenceFlow

Name: EvidenceFlow
Rating: 5.0 (1 reviews)

Launching today

Systematic reviews from screening to meta-analysis

5.0•1 review•

3 followers

Systematic reviews from screening to meta-analysis

5.0•1 review•

3 followers

Visit website

Team collaboration software

•

AI Workflow Automation

•

Analytics Databases

EvidenceFlow is a free-to-use evidence synthesis workspace for systematic reviews and meta-analysis. Build PICO questions, run blinded multi-reviewer screening, resolve conflicts, extract data, generate PRISMA 2020 flow diagrams, and create forest and funnel plots in one project. Core review workflows are free; AI-assisted screening and extraction are available when teams need to move faster.

Free

Launch tags:Productivity•Analytics•Artificial Intelligence

Launch Team / Built With

Maker

📌

Hi Product Hunt 👋 I’m Robin, founder of EvidenceFlow. I built EvidenceFlow after seeing how difficult it is for researchers to manage a systematic review across disconnected tools: one for references, another for screening, spreadsheets for extraction, separate software for meta-analysis, and manual PRISMA reporting at the end. EvidenceFlow brings the workflow into one place: • Define PICO questions and eligibility criteria • Screen titles, abstracts, and full texts with blinded reviewers • Detect disagreements and resolve them with an audit trail • Extract structured study data • Generate PRISMA 2020 flow diagrams from real project counts • Run fixed- and random-effects meta-analysis with forest and funnel plots • Export project data and outputs for reporting The core review workflow is free to use. AI-assisted screening and extraction are optional for teams that want help prioritizing and structuring work, while researchers retain control over final decisions. I would especially value feedback from researchers, students, librarians, epidemiologists, clinicians, and anyone who has completed a literature or systematic review: 1. Which part of the review workflow costs you the most time today? 2. What would make you trust or hesitate to trust a new evidence-synthesis platform? 3. Which free resource would be most useful: a PRISMA generator, PICO builder, extraction template, or meta-analysis calculator? Thank you for checking out EvidenceFlow. I’ll be here all day to answer questions and learn from your feedback.

Report

2d ago

Forum Threads

p/evidenceflow

•

2d ago

What is the most frustrating part of completing a systematic review today?

I m building EvidenceFlow, an evidence-synthesis workspace for systematic reviews, and I would really value honest feedback from researchers, students, librarians, clinicians, epidemiologists, and anyone who has worked on a literature or systematic review.

Many teams use several tools across one review: a reference manager, screening software, spreadsheets for extraction, separate analysis software, and manual PRISMA reporting.

Which stage causes the most friction for you?

Designing the protocol, PICO, and eligibility criteria

p/evidenceflow

•

2d ago

Would you trust AI to help with systematic-review screening? Where should the boundary be?

I m interested in how researchers think about AI-assisted literature screening and data extraction.

AI can potentially help prioritize records, surface patterns, and reduce repetitive work. But systematic reviews require transparency, reproducibility, and human judgment especially for include/exclude decisions and extracted study data.

Where would you find AI assistance genuinely useful?

Prioritizing likely relevant titles and abstracts

View all