Run reviews like releases.
Roles, comments, two-person sign-off, and an audit trail—all built into the same end-to-end review platform. Designed for HEOR consultancies, HTA agencies, guideline committees, and Cochrane-style review teams.
Built for the teams shipping 100-day JCA dossiers, NICE submissions, and Cochrane updates — where one slip in the audit trail kills the submission.
- 4 rolesPermission controlled
- 5 milestonesSign-off gates
- 2-personApproval rule
- 1 inboxFor mentions, sign-off & digests
Six capabilities. One coherent team product.
Roles & permissions for accountable review work.
Four roles — admin, lead reviewer, reviewer, viewer — control who can edit, review, approve, or observe. Private projects stay invisible to anyone outside the team — including search engines and people who guess at URLs.
- Admin can invite, promote, delete, and approve sign-offs.
- Lead Reviewer edits protocol, assigns workload, adjudicates conflicts.
- Reviewer submits screening decisions and extraction reviews — read-only on protocol.
- Viewer is read-only across the team — useful for stakeholders, methodologists, and auditors.
| What they can do | Admin | Lead reviewer | Reviewer | Viewer |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Invite, promote, and delete | Can do | Not stated | Not stated | Read-only |
| Approve sign-offs | Can do | Not stated | Not stated | Read-only |
| Request sign-off | Not stated | Can do | Not stated | Read-only |
| Edit protocol | Not stated | Can do | Read-only | Read-only |
| Assign workload | Not stated | Can do | Not stated | Read-only |
| Adjudicate conflicts | Not stated | Can do | Not stated | Read-only |
| Submit screening decisions | Not stated | Not stated | Can do | Read-only |
| Submit extraction reviews | Not stated | Not stated | Can do | Read-only |
Comments & @mentions on every object.
Threads anchor on analyses, studies, individual screening decisions, extracted outcomes, and extraction reviews. You can only @mention people on the same review, so a stray name from another team never sends a notification by accident.
- One level of replies per thread, collapsed for readability.
- Authors edit their own comments; admins and lead reviewers can soft-delete inappropriate content while preserving audit history.
- Resolve threads when the discussion is finished; re-open any time.
- Read and write access gated by the same team-role permissions as the parent analysis.
Unified notifications & email digest.
Every team event lands in one bell-icon inbox: @mentions in comments, invitations, adjudication pings, sign-off requests, and the living-review digest. One pipeline, one set of preferences.
- @mention in a comment
- InvitationSends immediately
- Adjudication pingSends immediately
- Sign-off request
- Living-review digest
- Per-user preferences route each kind to immediate email, digest email, or in-app only.
- Digest cadence is daily, weekly, or off — picked per notification kind.
- Safe defaults: invitations and adjudication requests send immediately; informational events are opt-in.
- Notification access is strictly per-user — you only ever see and act on your own.
Two-person protocol sign-off.
Five strict milestones — protocol locked → screening locked → extraction locked → analysis frozen → manuscript locked — let Cochrane- and HTA-style reviews enforce each stage before the next opens. The two-person rule is built in: whoever requests sign-off can never be the same person who approves it.
- RequestA lead reviewer requests sign-off with a milestone and optional notes.
- SnapshotThe system freezes the protocol, eligibility, and extraction form as an immutable snapshot.
- DecideEvery admin on the team is notified; one admin approves or rejects.
- LockOnce locked, edits to that stage are blocked until an admin reverts the milestone.
Workload assignments & conflict adjudication.
Split studies across reviewers per phase (abstract / full text) and slot (A / B). Auto-balance round-robins deterministically — refresh the page and you see the same preview before you commit.
- Per-reviewer “my queue” view stays fast even on 50,000-study reviews.
- Pick the review mode per analysis: single, dual AI + me, or dual two humans.
- Per-study peer-status badges — Agreed, Awaiting peer, or Conflict — visible without opening the study.
- Conflict adjudication shows a field-by-field diff between reviewer submissions.
Versioned protocols & audit-ready exports.
Every sign-off snapshots the analysis state into an immutable version. Every signed-off version is listed in chronological order, and you can diff any two consecutive versions side-by-side to see exactly what changed in the protocol, eligibility, or extraction form.
- v1Protocol locked
- v2Screening locked
- v3Extraction locked
- PRISMA flow updates automatically as studies move through the pipeline.
- Source-linked audit trail: every effect estimate traces back to the originating PDF snippet.
- Sign-off events, role changes, and adjudication decisions are all logged.
- Sign in with Google or Microsoft — no extra account or password to manage.
One home for your institution’s evidence.
An organisation is one home for an institution’s workspaces, people and reviews, set up from the Teams page.
Guests are invited by an owner or admin, need a sponsor, and their access is time-limited.
- Invitations
- Owners and admins invite people by email.
- Archiving
- Owners and admins archive workspaces.
- Audit page
- Downloads as a spreadsheet.
- Data page
- Retention, whether data may be used for AI training, archive and closure.
- Personal plans
- Personal plans and review slots are unchanged. Your personal library stays as it is when you join an organisation.
Publish signed-off reviews to the people who rely on them.
The organisation publishes signed-off reviews, with a curator’s attestation, to invited readers.
- Signed-off reviewPublishing starts from a review that has been signed off.
- Curator’s attestationEach published review carries a curator’s attestation.
- PreviewCheck the review before publishing it.
- Published to invited readersThe organisation publishes to the readers it invites.
- “Ask the library”Readers get an answer with references.
Ask the library
Answers come only from published reviews, with references. Pick an example question to see where the answer appears.
From kickoff to manuscript, on a single timeline.
The same five milestones every Cochrane- and HTA-style review already uses, but enforced by the platform instead of a shared spreadsheet. Every milestone snapshots the protocol so a regulator can replay the review months later from the same inputs.
- GDPR-compliant
- Sign in with Google / Microsoft
- Full audit trails
- BYOK on Enterprise
- Server-enforced role permissions
Bring your team. Ship your next review.
Free tier runs the full pipeline on one real review. Team plans start at 3 seats with 7 pooled reviews per seat per month.