Back to customer servicesResearch teams

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

You have an initial topic or a MetaQuant candidate with a stated data cutoff; recent reviews, registrations and independent usable data still need checking.

How does this scope address your concerns?

You do not want to invest months before discovering the question is already covered—or that many papers cannot answer one coherent question. A market score cannot make that judgment for you.

When this scope fits

You have an initial topic and want to limit the first commitment
You need to turn a MetaQuant candidate into a defined PICO and check recent reviews and registrations
You need to explain the scope, review responsibilities, and budget to collaborators or a funding lead

When the scope needs adjusting

You need an immediate clinical conclusion, a positive finding, or guaranteed journal acceptance
Your protocol, screening, and verified extraction are complete, and only a conventional analysis module is missing
You are treating model-estimated ROI as a verified personal investment return

REAL SOURCES · ILLUSTRATIVE REQUEST · DOWNLOADABLE SAMPLE

Check the major trial before funding the topic

Download sample packZIP

Published trial: 5-year disease-free survival

Unit: %

Structured exercise80.3 %

445 randomized participants

Health education73.9 %

444 randomized participants

NEJM 2025; n=889. Difference 6.4 percentage points (95% CI 0.6–12.2). This evaluates the programme, not resistance training alone.

Check	Finding / sample content	Use
Intervention	The major trial is not resistance-only	Check components and comparator
Overlap	Recent reviews and registrations require a full check	Record search dates and coverage
Go / narrow / pause	Independent component evidence remains unverified	Deliver staged scope and budget

SOURCES USED IN THIS EXAMPLE

CHALLENGE trial · NEJM 2025

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

Scope & acceptance

Work covered by the quote

Pay for feasibility before committing to a complete study

Define a PICO and run a pilot search for 1 proposed research question
Assess initial record and full-text volumes, access gaps, duplicate reports, dependencies, and risks to synthesis
Receive a feasibility memorandum, statement of work, and staged quote; material limits and review responsibilities are agreed first

Additional questions, full texts, methods, or review work are scoped before estimating the next stage. There is no automatic upgrade to a complete study.

Complete screening, executed synthesis results, a full SR/Meta, manuscript drafting and submission are excluded.
Literature and third-party expenses require advance approval and separate settlement as agreed

Fictional quote from the current complete-study specification · The example CNY 80,000 service fee includes the CNY 6,000 assessment. Inclusion or credit in an actual engagement must be stated in its quote.

Acceptance criteria

The PICO, pilot-search scope, and dates of review and registration checks are clear
Reasons to proceed, narrow, or pause are supported by sources or explicitly identified information gaps
Budget assumptions, full-text permissions, and human review responsibilities are traceable; the score and expected direction of findings are not acceptance criteria

Checking the evidence

Deliverables follow the current feasibility specification; the formal scope is confirmed before work starts.
Checks use a defined PICO, traceable original records, legally accessible full texts, and searches for relevant reviews and registrations.
MetaQuant supplies candidates and model estimates. Competition, independent study counts, clinical relevance, and your investment require further verification.

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

Choose a candidate

Select a topic from the library or describe your own clinical question.

What becomes visible

Review the topic, model basis, data cutoff, and assumptions still to verify.

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 commissionInvestigate one candidate question, competing studies and available material; document method risks and reasons to proceed, narrow or pause, with a study scope and budget.

Topic appraisal and study designCompare alternatives and value

Decide whether a study merits investment and how to proceed.

What to assess	ResearchRabbit / Elicit	Evidence OS · Commissioned scope
Service focus	ResearchRabbit and Elicit support literature discovery, research connections and study workflows. Teams can use tools to investigate and appraise candidate questions.	Investigate one candidate question, competing studies and available material; document method risks and reasons to proceed, narrow or pause, with a study scope and budget.
When to choose	Use tools to explore directions. Commission a topic-decision package when you want agreed competitive checks, pilot retrieval and methodological appraisal delivered for you.	One question with agreed sources and pilot limits. Deliver a study map, initial volumes and gaps, method risks, feasibility memo and staged budget.

What the fee pays for: Proposed CNY 5,000–15,000 per assessment, separately commissioned after scoping. Stop after delivery if appropriate. Credit reusable work within the subsequent study quote instead of charging twice.
Value beyond this task: Topic rationale, competition and material checks, study design, scope and budget for project decisions and subsequent research.
How to assess value: Assess whether the defined question, checked competition and material, method risks and budget support a commissioning decision.

Delivery covers topic decisions and study design; complete results and manuscripts are separately scoped. Public METAQUANT research assets support discovery. Scores and research ROI are scenarios rather than realised returns or publication guarantees.

CHECK THE OFFICIAL SERVICE SCOPEElicit — Systematic Literature Reviews / Pricing ResearchRabbit — Features / Pricing

Reuse and updates after delivery

Reuse the memorandum for collaborator discussions and project definition. Even if you pause, you retain the question, verification basis, and information still needed.

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

Questions before commissioning

If MetaQuant shows a high ROI, should I launch the study?

Verify first. Scores and ROI support model-based screening and scenario estimates; they do not represent evidence quality, realized revenue, or publication success. Check the PICO, competing coverage, independent data, clinical value, and your actual resources.

What if the assessment says the topic is not worthwhile?

You still receive findings, sources, limitations, and reasons to pause or narrow, so you can decide what comes next. We do not manufacture an evidence gap to keep a project moving, or guarantee a particular saving in time or money.

Does this fee cover the complete study?

No. Indicative feasibility fees are CNY 5,000–15,000. A defined complete systematic review or meta-analysis is indicatively CNY 60,000–150,000, with large programmes scoped separately. Assessment credit, literature, and external expenses must be agreed in advance.

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

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

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