Skip to main content
RSMindsRSMinds

ReviewMinds · Evidence Synthesis — a specialized subdomain of RSMinds

PRISMA family · 10 evidence-synthesis designs · Protocol-ready

Design Rigorous Evidence Syntheses
From Idea to PRISMA Protocol

Meta-analysis, systematic, scoping, rapid, realist and umbrella reviews — plus Delphi consensus. A 15-section adaptive workflow that re-flows for your review type: AI proposes the design, frames it in PICOTS / PCC / CMO, and builds search, screening, quality, and synthesis plans aligned to PRISMA 2020, PRISMA-ScR, and RAMESES.

Try the workflowSee how it works
No credit card to start7-day money back15,000 Mindful AI Tokens/month
review.rsminds.com / workflow
01Idea & Review Subtype
02PICOTS Framework
07Search Strategy
09Quality Assessment
15PRISMA Synopsis
+ up to 10 more sections — adapts to your review type
0

review subtypes across 3 categories

0

workflow sections — adaptive, idea to PRISMA synopsis

0

reporting standards: PRISMA 2020, PRISMA-ScR, PRISMA-NMA, RAMESES, CREDES

₹0/mo

starts here · 7-day money back

How ReviewMinds works

The adaptive 15-section workflow

Each section is its own AI-assisted accordion, and the backbone re-flows for your design. Below is the Meta-Analysis path — Reviews run 12 sections, Delphi runs 8. Outputs flow forward: your PICOTS shapes the search; the search feeds screening; quality threads into synthesis; everything assembles into a PRISMA synopsis.

01

Idea & Review Subtype

Inputs

Research idea text

AI action

predictReviewSubtype

Output

Best-fit design across 10 review subtypes (Meta-Analysis / Reviews / Consensus) with alternatives + category.

Saves 30–60 min of design-selection deliberation
02

PICOTS Framework

Inputs

Subtype context

AI action

suggestChips + framework extraction

Output

Adaptive PICOTS / PCC / CMO framing — operationalized into inclusion / exclusion criteria.

Saves 1–2 hours of eligibility refinement
03

Research Question & FINER

Inputs

Framework

AI action

draftReviewQuestion + auditResearchQuestion

Output

3 question drafts + FINER scoring (Feasibility, Interest, Novelty, Ethics, Relevance).

Saves 2–3 hours vs manual drafting
04

Hypothesis & Effect

Inputs

Question

AI action

draftReviewHypothesis

Output

Pooled-effect hypothesis (H1 / H0), primary objective, and secondary objectives. Meta-analysis path only.

Saves ~1 hour and sharpens the analytic target
05

Theory & Logic Model

Inputs

QuestionFramework

AI action

discoverTheories + generateFramework

Output

3 theory candidates with citations + logic model (CMO for realist reviews).

Saves 3–5 hours of literature triangulation
06

Protocol & Registration

Inputs

FrameworkTheory

AI action

generateProtocolRegistration

Output

PROSPERO / OSF / Cochrane registration plan with objectives, eligibility, and timeline guidance.

Saves 2–3 hours and pre-empts registration rejections
07

Search Strategy

Inputs

FrameworkProtocol

AI action

generateSearchStrategy

Output

Databases, MeSH/keyword blocks, Boolean query, grey-literature sources, date/language filters (PRISMA-S).

Saves 3–4 hours of search-string construction
08

Screening & Selection

Inputs

Search strategy

AI action

generateScreeningPlan

Output

Title/abstract + full-text screening workflow, inter-rater reliability, Rayyan/Covidence guidance.

Saves 1–2 hours and aligns with PRISMA items 8–9
09

Quality Assessment

Inputs

Screening plan

AI action

suggestQualityAssessment

Output

Tool selection (RoB 2, ROBINS-I, QUADAS-2, AMSTAR 2) with domain-level guidance.

Saves 2–3 hours of appraisal-tool research
10

Data Extraction

Inputs

Quality plan

AI action

generateDataExtractionForm

Output

Extraction template fields, duplicate management, and missing-data handling.

Saves 2–4 hours of form design
11

Evidence Synthesis

Inputs

Extraction plan

AI action

generateSynthesisPlan

Output

Narrative synthesis, vote counting, or quantitative pooling logic with heterogeneity thresholds.

Saves 2–3 hours and clarifies the synthesis route
12

Meta-Analysis Methods

Inputs

Synthesis plan

AI action

generateMetaAnalysisMethods

Output

Effect measure, fixed vs random model, subgroup analyses, and publication-bias assessment. Meta-analysis path only.

Saves 2–4 hours of statistical-plan drafting
13

Reporting Guideline

Inputs

All methods

AI action

generateReportingChecklist

Output

PRISMA-family checklist (PRISMA 2020 / -ScR / -NMA / RAMESES / CREDES) with item-by-item coverage.

Saves 1–2 hours and surfaces reporting gaps early
14

PRISMA Synopsis

Inputs

All previous sections

AI action

generateReviewSynopsis (parallel SSE)

Output

PRISMA-compliant protocol exportable as DOCX, PDF, or Markdown.

Saves a full day of protocol drafting

Subtype coverage

10 review subtypes — all covered

From fixed/random-effects meta-analysis to scoping, realist and umbrella reviews — plus Delphi consensus. Each subtype gets its own framework (PICOTS / PCC / CMO), PRISMA-family mapping, and synthesis guidance.

Meta-Analysis

4 designs

  • Fixed Effects Meta-Analysis

    One true effect — weights by inverse variance.

  • Random Effects Meta-Analysis

    Distribution of effects — between-study heterogeneity.

  • IPD Meta-Analysis

    Individual participant data pooled across studies.

  • Network Meta-Analysis

    Indirect comparisons across multiple treatments.

Reviews

5 designs

  • Traditional Systematic Review

    Exhaustive, protocol-driven evidence synthesis.

  • Scoping Review

    Map the breadth of evidence (PCC framework).

  • Rapid Review

    Streamlined methods for time-sensitive questions.

  • Realist Review

    What works, for whom, in what context (CMO).

  • Umbrella Review

    Review of existing systematic reviews.

Consensus

1 design

  • Delphi Consensus Study

    Iterative expert rounds converging on consensus (CREDES).

Compliance

Built on the evidence-synthesis
standards reviewers expect

Integrated

PRISMA 2020

Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses

Integrated

PRISMA-ScR

Extension for Scoping Reviews

Integrated

PRISMA-NMA

Extension for Network Meta-Analyses

Integrated

PRISMA-P

Reporting items for review protocols

Integrated

PRISMA-S

Reporting items for literature search strategies

Integrated

RAMESES

Realist And Meta-narrative Evidence Syntheses

Integrated

CREDES

Conducting and REporting DElphi Studies

Integrated

MOOSE 2000

Meta-analyses Of Observational Studies in Epidemiology

Integrated

AMSTAR 2

A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews

Integrated

ROBIS

Risk Of Bias In Systematic reviews

Integrated

RoB 2

Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for randomized trials

Integrated

ROBINS-I

Risk Of Bias In Non-randomized Studies — Interventions

Integrated

QUADAS-2

Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies

Integrated

GRADE

Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation

Integrated

PROSPERO

International prospective register of systematic reviews

Integrated

Cochrane Handbook

Methodological standard for systematic reviews

Your protocol is scored against the applicable PRISMA-family standard in real time.

Why this matters

PRISMA gaps,
caught before the reviewer finds them

Other tools

Draft a protocol. Hope it's complete.

A generic draft can skip a registered protocol, leave the grey-literature sources vague, or forget a risk-of-bias tool entirely. You won't notice until a PRISMA checklist line comes back unaddressed at peer review — or your search proves irreproducible months in.

ReviewMinds

Every section maps to a PRISMA item.

A running compliance score maps each completed section to the applicable PRISMA-family checklist — PRISMA 2020, PRISMA-ScR, PRISMA-NMA, RAMESES, or CREDES. Unaddressed items are visible while you build, not after submission.

  • Live PRISMA-family compliance score in the tool header.
  • Search recorded for reproducibility (PRISMA-S aligned).
  • Quality-assessment tool matched to your evidence base.
section 13 / reporting guideline · random-effects meta-analysis · PRISMA 2020

Draft coverage

19 / 27 items

before audit

Gaps flagged

+ registration, bias

8 unaddressed items surfaced

Final score

27 / 27 items

PRISMA 2020: complete

Plans

Simple pricing

7-day money-back guarantee

Access 1m

₹299/ 30 days

15,000 Mindful AI Tokens

  • All 10 review subtypes
  • 15-section adaptive workflow
  • PRISMA-family exports
Choose Access 1m
Most popular

Access 2m

₹499/ 60 days
Save ₹99

15,000 Mindful AI Tokens / month

  • Everything in 1m
  • Priority AI throughput
  • Save ₹99 vs monthly
Choose Access 2m

Access 3m

₹699/ 90 days
Save ₹198

15,000 Mindful AI Tokens / month

  • Everything in 2m
  • Quarterly project cadence
  • Save ₹198 vs monthly
Choose Access 3m
Compare all plans

FAQ

Frequently asked questions

Common questions from systematic reviewers, supervisors, and journal editors.

Which review designs does ReviewMinds cover?

All 10 mainstream evidence-synthesis subtypes across 3 categories — Meta-Analysis (fixed effects, random effects, individual participant data, network); Reviews (traditional systematic, scoping, rapid, realist, umbrella); and Consensus (Delphi). The workflow re-flows automatically for the design you pick.

What does "adaptive 15-section workflow" mean?

The same backbone adapts to your review type. Meta-analyses surface a hypothesis/effect step and a meta-analysis-methods step (14 sections). Standard reviews run 12 sections. Delphi consensus studies drop the literature-search arm and swap in expert rounds (8 sections). Section numbers re-flow so the list always reads 1..N.

How is the eligibility framework chosen?

By subtype. Meta-analysis, traditional systematic, rapid and umbrella reviews use PICOTS. Scoping reviews use PCC (Population, Concept, Context). Realist reviews use CMO (Context, Mechanism, Outcome). Delphi studies frame Topic, Expert Domain, Consensus Threshold, and Planned Rounds.

Will the protocol pass PRISMA peer review?

Output is structured against the applicable PRISMA-family standard — PRISMA 2020 for meta-analyses and systematic reviews, PRISMA-ScR for scoping, PRISMA-NMA for network meta-analyses, RAMESES for realist reviews, and CREDES for Delphi. A live compliance score tracks coverage. Formal sign-off still requires investigator verification — every line stays editable.

Does it help register the protocol?

Yes. The protocol step provides PROSPERO, OSF, and Cochrane registration guidance with field-by-field prompts, anticipated timelines, and amendment tracking.

What about the search strategy?

The search step builds database selection (MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, PsycINFO, CINAHL), MeSH/keyword blocks, a Boolean query, grey-literature sources, and date/language filters — aligned to PRISMA-S reporting expectations.

Which quality-assessment tools are supported?

Tool selection is matched to your evidence base — RoB 2 for randomized trials, ROBINS-I for non-randomized interventions, QUADAS-2 for diagnostic accuracy, AMSTAR 2 / ROBIS for umbrella reviews — with domain-level guidance.

Can I run a meta-analysis plan?

Yes — the meta-analysis step covers effect measure, fixed vs random model selection, heterogeneity (I², τ²), subgroup and sensitivity analyses, and publication-bias assessment. GRADE certainty is documented per outcome.

What export formats are supported?

DOCX, PDF, and Markdown in APA 7, Academic, or Institutional styles — with a title page, table of contents, numbered sections, and an Appendix A parameters table (PICOTS framework, theory, protocol registration, databases). The PRISMA compliance score appears in the subtitle.

Is there a free way to try it?

Review-type prediction (Step 1) is free with login — identify the right evidence-synthesis design for your idea. The full workflow unlocks on any access plan, with a 7-day money-back guarantee.

Start your systematic review in 5 minutes.

Free review-type prediction. No credit card. Sign in with Google.

Try the workflow