Systematic Review Services: Synthesising Published Studies Into Clear Strategic Findings

We transform scattered published evidence into rigorous, actionable intelligence that drives confident decisions. Our Systematic Review Services are designed for organisations that need high-integrity, reproducible syntheses of the literature — crafted by experienced information specialists, systematic reviewers, and secondary data analysts at Research Bureau.

Whether you need evidence to underpin policy, product strategy, market entry, grant applications, or organisational learning, we deliver concise strategic findings, transparent methods, and decision-focused recommendations.

Why systematic reviews matter for your strategy

A systematic review uses structured, reproducible methods to identify, evaluate, and synthesise all relevant literature on a specific question. This approach reduces bias and provides a clear window into what the published evidence does — and does not — support.

Eliminates ad hoc selection of studies and hidden biases.
Synthesises diverse evidence into clear conclusions and confidence levels.
Saves decision-makers time by turning mountains of papers into short, usable insights.
Provides defensible evidence for funding, procurement, compliance, and strategy.

At Research Bureau we pair methodological rigour with business-focused outputs so evidence directly informs your next move.

Our expertise and approach

We are a multidisciplinary team of information specialists, systematic reviewers, data analysts, and subject-area researchers. We follow internationally recognised standards for transparent synthesis while tailoring deliverables to your strategic needs.

Search design by trained information specialists skilled in academic and commercial databases.
Screening and critical appraisal by experienced reviewers using standard bias-assessment tools.
Synthesis through narrative methods, quantitative meta-analysis (where appropriate), and qualitative thematic/meta-synthesis.
Emphasis on reproducibility: documented search strategies, PRISMA-style flow diagrams, and machine-readable extraction datasets.

We do not provide medical or clinical advice. Our service focuses on robust synthesis of published studies and data to support non-clinical and evidence-based strategic decisions.

Who benefits from our systematic review services

Policy-makers and government agencies seeking evidence for program design.
NGOs and funders requiring rigorous evidence to support interventions.
Corporates and consultancies using evidence to inform product development, market strategy, or compliance.
Academic teams needing systematic mapping or literature synthesis as part of grant proposals.
Legal teams and regulators requiring defensible summaries of published evidence.

If you're unsure whether a systematic review or a different synthesis approach suits your needs, share details with us so we can recommend the optimal pathway.

Service types we provide

We offer a spectrum of synthesis services within the Desk Research and Secondary Data Analysis category. Choose a full systematic review or a tailored variant to meet time, budget, and scope constraints.

Full systematic review (comprehensive search, critical appraisal, synthesis, and report).
Rapid evidence review (accelerated methods with transparent trade-offs).
Scoping/systematic map (broad landscape mapping and gap analysis).
Qualitative evidence synthesis (meta-ethnography, thematic synthesis).
Quantitative evidence synthesis / meta-analysis (statistical pooling and heterogeneity analysis).
Evidence gap analysis and research prioritisation.
Living systematic review (ongoing updates and notifications).
Evidence-to-policy briefs, executive summaries, and decision frameworks.

Our systematic review process (detailed)

We follow a structured seven-step workflow that ensures transparency, reproducibility, and strategic clarity.

1. Scope & question formulation

We translate your decision needs into a focused review question using frameworks such as PICO/PECO or equivalent logic models for non-clinical topics.

Define population, intervention/exposure, comparator, outcomes, and context.
Establish inclusion/exclusion criteria and review objectives.
Agree deliverables and timelines.

2. Protocol & registration

We prepare a review protocol documenting methods, and, where appropriate, register it on an open platform (e.g., OSF). This increases transparency and reduces duplication.

Protocol includes search strategy, study selection, appraisal tools, and synthesis plan.
Optional publication of protocol for peer transparency.

3. Comprehensive search strategy

Our information specialists design reproducible searches across academic, commercial, and grey literature sources.

Databases: Scopus, Web of Science, PubMed/Medline (where relevant), EconLit, PsycINFO, ERIC, JSTOR, and industry-specific sources.
Grey literature: dissertations, government reports, NGO publications, patents, conference proceedings, clinical trial registries (if relevant), and corporate disclosures.
Boolean strategies, controlled vocabulary (MeSH/Emtree), and citation-tracking.
Documented search strings and results for reproducibility.

4. Screening & selection

We use double-screening workflows and inter-rater reliability checks to ensure unbiased selection.

Title/abstract screening followed by full-text screening.
Use of screening platforms (e.g., Covidence, Rayyan) to manage decisions.
PRISMA flow diagram detailing screening outcomes.

5. Data extraction & critical appraisal

We extract study characteristics and outcome data into structured templates. Critical appraisal uses validated tools tailored to study design.

Data extraction fields: study design, sample, setting, measures, outcomes, effect sizes, context notes.
Quality appraisals employ appropriate tools: ROBIS, RoB 2 (for RCTs), Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (for observational studies), CASP checklists, or context-specific frameworks.
Extraction carried out by one reviewer and checked by a second for quality assurance.

6. Evidence synthesis

We select the synthesis method that best answers your question and suits the evidence base.

Narrative synthesis for heterogeneous evidence.
Quantitative meta-analysis where comparable effect sizes exist, including subgroup and sensitivity analyses.
Qualitative synthesis for thematic integration of qualitative studies or mixed-methods evidence.
Evidence mapping to visualise research distribution across topics and geographies.

7. Reporting & translation

We produce a full technical report and a suite of strategic outputs customised to your audience.

Technical report with methods, appendices, data tables, forest plots, and reproducible code.
Executive summary, one-page evidence brief, policy memo, slide deck, and risk/uncertainty matrix.
Recommendation frameworks and decision matrices linking evidence certainty to action.

Deliverables you will receive

We provide both technical documentation and decision-focused outputs to support immediate use.

Protocol document and registration record.
Reproducible search strategies and database exports.
PRISMA flow diagram and screening logs.
Extracted datasets (CSV/Excel) and code for analyses (R scripts).
Critical appraisal tables and risk-of-bias summaries.
Forest plots, funnel plots, heterogeneity statistics (I2), and meta-regression results where applicable.
Full technical report (PDF) and concise executive summary (1–3 pages).
Presentation slide deck and tailored briefing notes for stakeholders.

Types of synthesis: comparative table

Synthesis type	Best for	Key outputs	Typical timeline
Full systematic review	Focused, high-stakes questions with sufficient literature	Detailed technical report, meta-analysis (if possible), recommendations	3–9 months
Rapid evidence review	Time-sensitive decisions requiring transparent evidence synthesis	Condensed report, limited search breadth, clear limitations	2–6 weeks
Scoping / systematic map	Broad mapping of evidence, gap identification	Evidence maps, interactive tables, research agenda	6–12 weeks
Meta-analysis	Quantitative pooling of comparable effect sizes	Forest plots, pooled estimates, subgroup analysis	8–16 weeks
Qualitative evidence synthesis	Understanding mechanisms, experiences, context	Thematic maps, synthesis narratives	8–14 weeks
Living review	Evolving evidence bases where new studies emerge	Continuous updates, alerting, living evidence dashboard	Ongoing

Quality assurance, transparency, and reproducibility

We embed QA at every stage to make your review defensible and replicable.

Dual screening and double data extraction for reliability.
Inter-rater agreement metrics and arbitration logs.
Version-controlled code and datasets shared via secure link.
Clear reporting of limitations and certainty of evidence using GRADE or equivalent frameworks.
Archival of search results and retrieval records for auditability.

Advanced quantitative methods we use

When the data allows, we apply rigorous statistical methods to synthesise and interrogate findings.

Fixed-effect and random-effects meta-analysis.
Heterogeneity assessment (Cochran’s Q, I2 statistic).
Meta-regression to explore moderators and contextual drivers.
Subgroup analyses and sensitivity checks.
Small-study effects and publication bias assessment (funnel plots, Egger’s test).
Network meta-analysis for indirect comparisons (where appropriate).

We document assumptions, model choices, and sensitivity results to help stakeholders interpret the robustness of pooled estimates.

Dealing with heterogeneity and uncertainty

We expect heterogeneity across studies and handle it transparently:

Pre-specified subgroup and moderator analyses to explain variation.
Narrative integration when pooling is inappropriate.
Quantified uncertainty and decision impact statements to guide risk-aware decisions.
Use of visual tools (evidence maps, heatmaps) to show where evidence is concentrated or sparse.

Practical examples and case studies

Below are anonymised examples of projects we've completed to illustrate typical outputs and impact.

Example 1 — Policy design for social programme targeting

Objective: Assess effectiveness of cash transfer models on school retention in Sub-Saharan Africa.
Approach: Systematic review with meta-analysis of quasi-experimental and RCT evidence.
Output: Pooled effect size, moderator analysis by programme duration, and a policy memo recommending conditional vs unconditional models based on cost-effectiveness and context.
Impact: Informed a donor’s allocation of a $12M pilot and selection of monitoring indicators.

Example 2 — Market entry evidence brief for a fintech product

Objective: Determine evidence on adoption drivers of digital credit in emerging markets.
Approach: Scoping review with mixed-method synthesis of quantitative uptake studies and qualitative user-experience research.
Output: Evidence map, barriers and enablers matrix, and three strategic recommendations for product design and regulatory engagement.
Impact: Supported go/no-go decision and product feature prioritisation.

Example 3 — Evidence gap analysis for research grant

Objective: Map research on urban resilience metrics to identify funding priorities.
Approach: Systematic map with bibliometric analysis and gap scoring by geography and outcome domain.
Output: Interactive map and ranked priority list for future research funding.
Impact: Guided funder call topics and evaluation criteria.

Pricing models and timelines

Our pricing is tailored based on scope, depth, and turnaround. Below are typical ballpark ranges to give you an initial sense. Final quotes follow receipt of project details.

Rapid evidence review: USD 4,000 – 12,000 | Timeline: 2–6 weeks
Systematic scoping/map: USD 8,000 – 18,000 | Timeline: 6–12 weeks
Full systematic review (narrative): USD 18,000 – 40,000 | Timeline: 3–6 months
Full systematic review with meta-analysis: USD 25,000 – 70,000 | Timeline: 4–9 months
Living reviews and on-call update services: Retainer models starting at USD 2,000/month

Factors influencing cost:

Breadth of search (number of databases and grey literature sources).
Volume of included studies and complexity of extraction.
Need for advanced statistical modelling or bespoke visualisation.
Stakeholder engagement and bespoke dissemination materials.

Share your project brief and we’ll provide a transparent, itemised quote.

How to commission a review — step-by-step

Share your brief: question, audience, timeline, budget, and any key background documents.
Scoping call: we refine the question, agree inclusion criteria, and recommend the review type.
Proposal & quote: we submit a detailed project plan, deliverables, timeline, and cost.
Protocol & kick-off: once contracted, we draft the protocol and begin searches.
Regular updates: milestone reporting and interim briefings for stakeholder alignment.
Final delivery: report, datasets, and knowledge-transfer session.

If you want an expedited estimate, send: scope, primary outcomes of interest, and desired deliverables to [email protected] or use the contact form. Click the WhatsApp icon on this page for quick queries.

Common objections we address

“Systematic reviews take too long.” — We offer rapid review models with explicit trade-offs and living review approaches for evolving evidence.
“Our topic is too niche.” — We search grey literature, specialist databases, and citation trails to retrieve relevant studies beyond mainstream sources.
“We can’t afford a full systematic review.” — Consider phased approaches: scoping review to justify a full review or targeted rapid reviews for immediate decisions.
“We don’t know whether to do quantitative pooling.” — We assess study comparability and recommend appropriate synthesis methods, documenting all choices.

Tools and software we use

We use industry-standard tools to ensure efficiency and reproducibility.

Reference & screening: EndNote, Zotero, Covidence, Rayyan.
Data analysis: R (metafor, meta), Stata, RevMan where appropriate.
Qualitative analysis: NVivo, ATLAS.ti.
Project management & collaboration: OSF, GitHub/Bitbucket, secure cloud storage.
Visualisation: ggplot2 (R), Tableau, bespoke infographics.

We supply code and datasets for organisations that require audit trails or reproducibility.

Ethical considerations & data governance

We adhere to strict ethical and data protection standards.

Use of published and publicly available data only, unless otherwise agreed.
Secure handling of any client-shared documents with NDA options.
Transparent declaration of conflicts of interest and funding sources in reports.

FAQs

Q: How long will my review take?

A: Depends on the type. Rapid reviews: weeks; full systematic reviews: months. We provide a timeline with every proposal.

Q: Do you include cost-effectiveness analysis?

A: We synthesise published economic evaluations and can run basic cost-effectiveness models if required. We do not provide clinical advice.

Q: Will we get the raw extraction data?

A: Yes. We provide CSV/Excel extraction datasets and analysis scripts on request.

Q: Can you support stakeholder workshops?

A: Yes. We offer briefing sessions, stakeholder engagement, and dissemination workshops to translate evidence into action.

Q: Are your methods replicable?

A: All search strategies, screening logs, and code are documented and provided to clients to enable replication.

Evidence translation and impact: turning findings into decisions

We don’t stop at synthesis. Our outputs prioritise usability:

Actionable recommendations linked to evidence certainty.
Decision matrices that weigh benefits, risks, costs, and context.
Tailored policy briefs for non-technical stakeholders.
Presentations and briefing sessions to translate findings into operational steps.

Clients often use our deliverables to inform procurement criteria, funding windows, risk registers, and product feature roadmaps.

Get a quote — share your project details

To receive a custom proposal, tell us:

The specific question or decision you need evidence for.
Target audience and expected deliverables.
Preferred timeline and budget constraints.
Any known key studies or data sources to prioritise.

Email: [email protected]
Or use the contact form on this page. For urgent queries, click the WhatsApp icon.

We’ll respond with a scoping call invitation and a clear, itemised quote.

Final note on rigor and usability

A well-executed systematic review is an investment that reduces uncertainty and strengthens decisions. At Research Bureau we combine methodological rigour with strategic clarity so your team can act with evidence-backed confidence.

Share your brief now to explore the right review type for your needs, and get a transparent quote tailored to scope, timeline, and impact.