Back to customer servicesResearch teams

A complete-study scale scenario: execute and review a large volume at milestones.

Many records and full texts, complex study dependencies and multiple teams require common rules, clear responsibilities and staged handover of sources, data and versions.

How does this scope address your concerns?

Once tasks are distributed, who owns the sources, disagreements, data versions, and final statistical decisions? At scale, a single total can also obscure review and literature costs.

When this scope fits

You have a defined research use and an accountable funding or procurement lead for substantial work
You can agree on material permissions, roles, methods, review duties, and acceptance criteria before launch
You want to retain data and code assets and scope later updates by additional work

When the scope needs adjusting

You require unlimited research, full texts, or expert services for a year
You expect payment to secure authorship positions, positive findings, or journal acceptance
Necessary full-text rights are missing and you do not accept prior checks of permissions and scope

REAL SOURCES · ILLUSTRATIVE REQUEST · DOWNLOADABLE SAMPLE

Large collaboration with explicit correction responsibility

Download sample packZIP

Own research: internal event disposition

Unit: Root-cause events

Resolved46 Root-cause events

Recorded in the internal retrospective audit

Retained and disclosed4 Root-cause events

Residual issues remain visible

v2 same-case internal evaluation: 50 root-cause events and 1,217 numerical comparisons. 46/50 is not accuracy, customer success or independent validation.

Check	Finding / sample content	Use
Review responsibilities	Assign screening, extraction, statistics and adjudication	Record owners and handover conditions
Correction ledger	Original/reviewed values, cause and status coexist	Trace corrections and residual limitations
Update baseline	Freeze protocol, data, code and source versions	Scope additions as incremental work

SOURCES USED IN THIS EXAMPLE

EOS · 可审计证据系统内部评价 v2

Prepared 5 Oct 2026 · Selected references, not an exhaustive systematic search

Scope & acceptance

Work covered by the quote

Tier 3 complete-study scale example · scoped volumes and milestones

Feasibility is paid first; the formal statement of work defines records, full texts, studies, outcomes, methods, human review, and handover
Example workload: 20,000 records, 400 full texts, and 5 outcomes; not a standard allowance for every project
Protocol, screening and extraction logs, dependency records, agreed review, data and code packages, and an update baseline

After the baseline, updates are defined by additional records, full texts, outcomes, and review depth. Data reuse, author contributions, intellectual property, and publication arrangements are agreed separately.

Literature and third-party expenses are approved and settled separately
Later updates, new questions, and additional review require separate agreement; this is not unlimited research for a year
Manuscript drafting, editing, submission materials and reviewer revisions are optional modules: separately agree manuscript stage, target format, revision rounds, author contributions and fees. They are not included by default.

Fictional new-project budget, not the social connection and surgical outcomes study cost or contract price · The CNY 600,000 example service fee includes the CNY 10,000 assessment. Actual pricing depends on the confirmed scope, methods, permissions, and review responsibilities.

Acceptance criteria

The research scope, roles, methods, and frozen versions can be checked
Numbers trace to extraction and original sources, with dependency, exclusion, disagreement, and correction records
Agreed professional review is complete and results can be reproduced in the agreed environment
Acceptance concerns methods and delivery completeness, not result direction, publication, citations, or clinical benefit

Checking the evidence

The current large-programme specification begins with feasibility. A statement of work then fixes questions, records, full texts, included studies, outcomes, and human review.
Results depend on lawfully obtained original papers, traceable extraction data, study-dependency records, and agreed statistical methods. Corrections and disagreements retain their versions.
the social connection and surgical outcomes study is our own real research case, used to illustrate scale and deliverable structure. This budget is a fictional new-project example, not its cost, contract price, or a client success result.

Workflow and inputs

From inputs to delivery

Explore the workflow and deliverable structure. This preview does not run searches, read real records or produce medical findings.

01 / WORKFLOW PREVIEW

Define scale and responsibilities

Assess feasibility and confirm questions, material volumes, full-text permissions, methods, and review roles.

What becomes visible

Separate foreseeable work, external expenses, and conditions still requiring confirmation.

Methods, sources and professional responsibilities

THE BASIS FOR THIS SCOPE

Why this approach? Inspect the basis.

A research commission should specify searching, selection, synthesis, certainty and any updating process.

METHOD REFERENCE

PRISMA 2020

PRISMA Executive

Report the review transparently

Report why the review was done, how studies were identified and selected, the methods and the results.

Scope & access conditions

PRISMA is a reporting guideline, not quality certification or a guarantee of positive findings or publication.

Open official source

METHOD REFERENCE

GRADE · Cochrane Handbook

Cochrane · Chapter 14

Show effect size and confidence separately

Present important outcomes, relative and absolute effects, available data and certainty, with reasons for downgrading.

Scope & access conditions

GRADE evaluates a body of evidence for a particular outcome. Database inclusion or one study does not automatically establish high certainty.

Open official source

METHOD REFERENCE

PRISMA-LSR

PRISMA · 2024 extension

Record how the evidence is updated

The living-review reporting extension adds detail about the searching and updating process.

Scope & access conditions

It informs a living-review reporting scope; it does not establish that every EOS product already updates automatically.

Open official source

These references support problem definition and evidence appraisal. Your conclusions still require project-specific sources and professional review.

The value of this commissionAfter pilot appraisal, agree the question, input volume, methods, professional review and milestones, then coordinate execution and hand over reports, registers, data and code.

Complete SR / meta-analysis resultsCompare alternatives and value

Deliver one reproducible study around a main question, from protocol to synthesis.

What to assess	Covidence / Elicit / DistillerSR	Evidence OS · Commissioned scope
Service focus	Covidence and Elicit support research workflows; DistillerSR offers evidence management and managed expert services. Compare software, professional services and responsibilities using their official descriptions.	After pilot appraisal, agree the question, input volume, methods, professional review and milestones, then coordinate execution and hand over reports, registers, data and code.
When to choose	A team can organise its own software, execution and review. For complete commissions, compare the study scope, stage responsibilities and final research package.	Protocol, retrieval and screening, extraction, risk-of-bias assessment, appropriate synthesis, report, figures, data, code and review records. Agree volumes, outcomes and revisions for one main question.

What the fee pays for: Proposed CNY 60,000–150,000 per scoped project; larger or complex studies need a separate workload estimate. The fictional CNY 80,000 example includes CNY 6,000 assessment, followed by CNY 24,000, 30,000 and 20,000 stages, without a repeated assessment fee.
Value beyond this task: Complete report, source and judgement registers, data and code, methods and review records for reproduction and later updates.
How to assess value: Compare execution, professional review and third-party investment for the same scope. Accept each stage by source completeness and reproducibility.

Default delivery is a research-results package. Draft manuscripts, legends, reference checks, submission materials and revision rounds are optional and itemised in the same quote. The team agrees authorship and final submission. Findings may be negative or unsuitable for pooling; acceptance is independent of significance or publication.

CHECK THE OFFICIAL SERVICE SCOPEElicit — Systematic Literature Reviews / Pricing Covidence — Systematic Review Platform DistillerSR — Evidence Management Platform

Reuse and updates after delivery

Your team retains reusable protocols, a data dictionary, source links, code, and a version baseline. New members and later updates can build on a documented process.

Agree reuse rights, retention and export periods, and future update fees when scoping.

Questions before commissioning

What determines this price range?

Records, full texts, included studies, outcomes, dependencies, methodological complexity, and human and statistical review duties determine the work. Scope, milestones, and external expenses are itemized separately. AI does not replace the review agreed for the project.

Who is responsible for screening, extraction, and statistical judgments?

The statement of work names stage owners, review and arbitration arrangements, matters requiring customer confirmation, and delivery acceptance roles before launch. Data permissions, use of outputs, and author contributions are agreed separately. Authorship positions cannot be purchased.

Will the study keep updating automatically after delivery?

It is not sold as an unlimited service. Deliver the baseline and versions first, then agree update budgets and frequency for additional records, full texts, outcomes, and review work. Rules for reusing the same material are explicit in the engagement.

Is a large project a fourth service tier?

No. It is a scale option within complete studies. Inputs, outcomes, methods, review and handover determine the quote; manuscript work and later updates remain separate.

Define the delivery for your actual question.

Add your goal, available inputs and timing. Agree scope, review responsibilities and a quote before commissioning.

Request scope & quote

Explore other situations

Research teams

You have an idea. Validate it before launching a study.

Receive a topic-assessment report and study-design inputs: a defined PICO, competition, data gaps, proceed/narrow/pause reasons and next-stage scope and budget. This is not completed study results or a manuscript.

CNY 5,000–15,000 per topicSee the deliverable

Research teams

Your data are verified. Finish a defined analysis module.

Execute one agreed analysis module and receive data/method records, reproducible code and results, agreed figures and sensitivity analyses, and a handover discussion.

From CNY 3,000 per moduleSee the deliverable

Research teams

Your question and scope are clear. Commission the complete review.

Default delivery includes protocol/logs, extraction and appraisal, executed appropriate synthesis, a research report, data and code; inappropriate pooling is replaced with reasons and structured synthesis. Manuscript and submission materials are optional.

CNY 60,000–150,000 per defined systematic review or meta-analysisSee the deliverable

Other tasks in this area

Tier 1 · Topic assessment & feasibility Tier 2 · Research module & results Tier 3 · Complete systematic review / meta-analysis