Back to customer servicesResearch teams

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

Your main question and intended use are defined. You need the protocol, search, screening, extraction, appraisal and analysis completed under consistent rules, with agreed human review.

How does this scope address your concerns?

Separate providers can leave gaps between stages. When the results arrive, you still need to verify sources, methods, and review responsibilities.

When this scope fits

Your main question and intended use are clear, and you want to commission the complete workflow
You can agree individually on records, full texts, included studies, outcomes, methods, human review, and permissions
You want staged acceptance of the process and final results, retaining reusable data and code

When the scope needs adjusting

Your question, competition, or feasibility remains unclear and needs an initial assessment
You already have verified data and only need one conventional analysis module
Tens of thousands of records, multiple teams, and complex dependencies require a separately scoped large programme
You require positive findings, specified authorship positions, or guaranteed acceptance by a target journal

REAL SOURCES · ILLUSTRATIVE REQUEST · DOWNLOADABLE SAMPLE

Turn one question into a reviewable systematic review

Download sample packZIP

Illustrative commissioned workload

01
Record screening
Illustrative maximum 3,000; retain rules and disagreements
02
Full-text assessment
Illustrative maximum 80; trace exclusions
03
Studies and outcomes
Illustrative maximum 20 studies and 2 outcomes

These are existing fictional quote assumptions, not screening results or fixed allowances for every project.

Check	Finding / sample content	Use
Question freeze	Define procedure, exposure and time window first	Confirm the protocol version
Traceable decisions	Study identities and exclusions enter the ledger	Complete agreed human review
Reporting and handover	Conclusions and supplements use the same inputs	Reproduce figures and report limitations

SOURCES USED IN THIS EXAMPLE

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

Scope & acceptance

Work covered by the quote

A complete review priced by confirmed scope and delivered in stages

1 main question; records, full texts, included studies, outcomes, and methods are agreed individually
Protocol, search, screening, extraction, risk-of-bias assessment, appropriate analyses, and reproducibility materials
Human review, interpretation, the report, and handover are confirmed first; AI does not remove agreed review
Research report, data and code are the default. If manuscript work is selected, separately specify writing scope, delivery version and revision rounds.

No automatic renewal after delivery. New questions or updates require scope confirmation. Data reuse, author contributions, intellectual property, and publication arrangements are agreed separately.

Literature and external expenses are settled separately at actual, pre-approved amounts
New questions, outcomes, methods, material batches, and later updates require a new scope
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 budget from the existing research offer, not a client or the social connection and surgical outcomes study contract · The example total service fee of CNY 80,000 includes the CNY 6,000 assessment. Actual assessment inclusion, milestones, and material volumes require explicit agreement and cannot automatically follow this example.

Acceptance criteria

Protocol, eligibility rules, search coverage and dates, and version changes are clear
Screening reasons, extraction, and risk-of-bias judgments trace to original sources, with dependencies, missingness, and disagreements documented
Agreed human review is complete, and analyses and code can be reproduced in the agreed environment
The report and supplements match the scope; if pooling is inappropriate, reasons and a structured synthesis are delivered
Significance, result direction, publication, and authorship positions are not acceptance conditions

Checking the evidence

Deliverables follow the current complete-review specification, limited to 1 main question.
The statement of work defines records, full texts, included studies, outcomes, methods, and human review individually. There is no universal material allowance.
Results depend on lawfully obtained original papers, source locations, extraction data, risk-of-bias assessment, and agreed analyses. Missingness, disagreements, study dependencies, and reasons not to pool are documented.

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

Turn the question into an agreed scope

Review existing protocols, the PICO, intended use, and completed work. Agree on volumes, outcomes, methods, human roles, and acceptance.

What becomes visible

See a clear statement of work, literature and external expense arrangements, and a staged quote.

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

The protocol, screening reasons, data dictionary, source links, and code remain available for team verification, methods supplements, and future study definition. New team members can work from a documented record.

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

Questions before commissioning

If I already have a protocol or assessment, do I pay to start again?

First review what can be reused and what remains to do; the same work is not automatically repeated. Assessment inclusion is stated in the quote. The existing fictional CNY 80,000 example includes CNY 6,000 for assessment, but does not define a universal credit policy.

How many papers and outcomes does CNY 60,000–150,000 cover?

The range does not correspond to a universal allowance. For 1 main question, records, full texts, included studies, outcomes, methods, and human review are agreed individually. The example 3,000 / 80 / 20 / 2 describes one hypothetical project; larger or more complex research is priced separately.

Will I definitely get a meta-analysis and a publication?

Neither is guaranteed. Pooling requires suitable methods and data; otherwise reasons and a structured synthesis are delivered. Fees and acceptance concern agreed work, sources, methods, and reproducibility, not positive findings, significance, or journal decisions. Manuscript and submission services are agreed separately.

Does a complete study automatically include a submission-ready paper?

No. The default is a research report and reproducible outputs. Drafting, journal formatting, submission packs and reviewer replies are optional. Authors are responsible according to actual contributions; journal decisions are not acceptance criteria.

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

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

Receive the complete-study protocol, logs, executed synthesis, report, agreed review and reproducible data/code, with an update baseline. Manuscript, submission and additional revisions are optional.

Large: CNY 200,000–600,000; very large: CNY 500,000–1,500,000+See the deliverable