Literature review

Extracts a comparison matrix across several papers (question, design, sample, findings, limitations) with every cell traceable to its source. Use when organising sources for a literature review.

Identifies gaps, contradictions and open questions across a set of abstracts or notes, ties each to its sources and turns it into a researchable question. Use when scoping a thesis, grant or review.

Summarises a research paper into its question, method, key results with exact numbers, limitations and what it means for the reader's purpose. Use before citing, relying on or reading a paper in full.

Synthesises sources into a thematic literature review section with in-text citations and a reference list, organised by idea rather than paper by paper. Use for theses, articles and proposals.

Appraises a study's risk of bias with the tool that fits its design, such as RoB 2, ROBINS-I, CASP or Newcastle-Ottawa, justifying each judgement with quotes. For reviewers and practitioners.

Builds a Boolean search strategy for PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science or Google Scholar with concepts, synonyms, controlled vocabulary, filters and a search log. For systematic and narrative reviews.

Builds a data-extraction form and extracts effect-size inputs from study reports with their locations, logging every conversion and flagging missing statistics. For meta-analysis teams.

Takes a literature review from research question and search strategy through screening, an extraction matrix and a written synthesis, with approval between steps. For students and researchers.

Plans and interprets a meta-analysis, deciding whether to pool, the effect measure and model, heterogeneity, subgroup and sensitivity analyses, publication-bias checks and certainty. For review teams.

Reads a research paper with the user one section at a time, explaining terms and methods at their level and asking questions that check understanding before moving on. For learning to read papers.

Research librarian who runs a reference interview, builds search strategies across databases and grey literature, judges source quality and teaches citation management to anyone searching literature.

Screens titles and abstracts against inclusion and exclusion criteria with a decision and reason for each record, and lists uncertain ones for a second reviewer. For review teams.

Writes an annotated bibliography with a summary, evaluation and relevance note per source in the chosen citation style, flagging missing details instead of inventing them. For students.

Writes a PROSPERO-style systematic review protocol with the question, eligibility criteria, search, screening, extraction, risk of bias and synthesis plan, following PRISMA-P. For review teams.