Run literature reviews you can defend
Aibstracts helps teams move from search and screening to appraisal and synthesis with source-grounded outputs, reviewer control, and a defensible audit trail.
“Endovascular therapy reduced major amputation at 12 months.”
- D1
- D2
- D3
- D4
- D5
“3.8% vs 16.4% major amputation · HR 0.69 (95% CI 0.28–0.83).”PubMed · p. 7, Results · reviewer-verifiable
Used by researchers and teams at
220M+ papers searchable PRISMA · Cochrane RoB 2 · ROBINS-I
Most review tools speed up reading. Your team still has to defend the work
- 01
Summaries don’t replace appraisal.
Reading gets faster. The methodology still happens by hand.
- 02
Decision logs don’t make work defensible.
A click trail is not the same as a review you can stand behind.
- 03
Reviewer sign-off is not reviewer support.
You can override the answer. You still carry the hard reasoning yourself.
One workflow that takes a literature review from question to defensible answer
Every step is transparent, editable, and traceable, so moving faster never costs you a result you can defend.
- 1
Define the protocol
You turn a research question into a structured, defensible protocol you can react to, instead of starting from a blank PICO template you have to populate by hand.
- 2
Search and screen studies
You surface the relevant studies and clear out the noise without reading thousands of abstracts yourself.
- 3
Appraise the evidence
You get a consistent risk-of-bias appraisal for every study, each one routed to the framework that actually fits it.
- 4
Trace every decision
You can show anyone why a study was included and how it was rated, so peer review and audits stop being a scramble.
Not a paper chatbot. Not just a review manager
Generic AI summarizes but cannot carry a methodology. Review managers organize the work but leave the appraisal to you. Aibstracts does the methodological work for you, and shows exactly how it reached every result.
| Capability | Generic AI chat | Review management tools | Aibstracts |
|---|---|---|---|
| Summarizes papers | Yes | Limited | Yes |
| Supports the review workflow | No | Yes | Yes |
| Routes studies by design | No | Limited | Yes |
| Supports critical appraisal | Generic | Manual | Structured |
| Links judgments to PDF evidence | Weak | Limited | Yes |
| Audit-ready rationale | Weak | Manual | Yes |
| Handles overrides transparently | No | Manual | Yes |
Every conclusion, one click from its source
Pick a synthesis claim. Aibstracts walks it back through every layer that produced it, down to the exact paper, page, and quote.
Conclusion
Endovascular therapy reduced major amputation at 12 months.
Supporting finding
3.8% vs 16.4% · HR 0.69 (95% CI 0.28–0.83)
Study appraisal
Overall: low risk · Reviewer 1
Inclusion rationale
Population, comparator, outcomes all matched.
Protocol criterion
RCTs comparing endovascular vs. standard care in PAD.
Search run
PubMed · 1,943 records · 2024-02-01
Six layers. No reconstruction. No memory. The trail is the product.
Built for the teams that have to be right
For: Clinical Evaluation Regulatory Affairs HEOR Market Access Evidence Synthesis Medical Writing
Systematic review teams
PRISMA-ready reviews with the audit trail built as you work, and appraisal consistency that holds whether one reviewer or ten screen.
Explore
Medical device evidence teams
CER and PMS/PMCF evidence a notified body can follow end to end. Updates re-run on the same trail, not rebuilt from scratch.
Explore
Pharma / HEOR / evidence strategy
SLRs and evidence landscapes with submission-grade appraisal consistency. Payer narratives that trace to source on demand.
Explore
Academic researchers
Rigorous reviews with methodology transparent enough to publish. Every conclusion traces to its source paper, page, and quote.
ExplorePut your hardest review in front of it
Book a demo and we will take a real question of yours from protocol to a source-anchored, audit-ready result, with every step open to inspection.
A free plan is available, no card required