Level of Evidence Pyramid for Systematic Reviews
What the levels of evidence pyramid means in systematic reviews — plain diagram language plus a worked example level.
Read article →Evidence Table Builder
Research PDFs in. Defensible tables out.
Extract structured answers for systematic reviews, meta-analyses, and CERs with verbatim quotes, page locations, and review flags in every Excel export.
Create a free account — 3 PDFs free, no card required.
See the extraction workflow
Watch Evidence Table Builder turn research PDFs into structured, reviewable Excel outputs.
Built for evidence work
Systematic reviewsMeta-analysesClinical evaluation reportsHTA submissionsHEOR evidence tablesRCTsObservational studiesSafety narrativesComparative effectivenessLiterature screening follow-ups
Systematic reviewsMeta-analysesClinical evaluation reportsHTA submissionsHEOR evidence tablesRCTsObservational studiesSafety narrativesComparative effectivenessLiterature screening follow-ups
Systematic reviewsMeta-analysesClinical evaluation reportsHTA submissionsHEOR evidence tablesRCTsObservational studiesSafety narrativesComparative effectivenessLiterature screening follow-ups
Systematic reviewsMeta-analysesClinical evaluation reportsHTA submissionsHEOR evidence tablesRCTsObservational studiesSafety narrativesComparative effectivenessLiterature screening follow-ups
Literature screening follow-upsComparative effectivenessSafety narrativesObservational studiesRCTsHEOR evidence tablesHTA submissionsClinical evaluation reportsMeta-analysesSystematic reviews
Literature screening follow-upsComparative effectivenessSafety narrativesObservational studiesRCTsHEOR evidence tablesHTA submissionsClinical evaluation reportsMeta-analysesSystematic reviews
Literature screening follow-upsComparative effectivenessSafety narrativesObservational studiesRCTsHEOR evidence tablesHTA submissionsClinical evaluation reportsMeta-analysesSystematic reviews
Literature screening follow-upsComparative effectivenessSafety narrativesObservational studiesRCTsHEOR evidence tablesHTA submissionsClinical evaluation reportsMeta-analysesSystematic reviews
From study PDFs to a review-ready table
A focused extraction path—not another chat-with-PDF toy. Define what you need once, then reuse it across your corpus.
- 01
Upload studies
Drop one PDF or a full batch. Keep moving while files process.
- 02
Define questions
Set the fields your evidence table needs—population, outcomes, follow-up, and more.
- 03
Export with proof
Receive structured Excel plus an Audit Trail sheet: quotes, locations, confidence, flags.
Batch intake
Keep the corpus moving
Upload multiple papers and extract against the same question set—ideal for screening follow-ups and living reviews.
Smith_2023_RCT.pdf
12 pages
Chen_2022_Cohort.pdf
18 pages
Garcia_2024_Meta.pdf
24 pages
Mean ageSample sizeInterventionComparatorPrimary endpointFollow-up durationInclusion criteriaAdverse events
Output
Analysis-ready Excel, not loose notes
Consistent columns for filtering and synthesis—plus a second sheet that keeps every answer accountable.
ResultsAudit Trail
Question
Answer
Flag
Mean age
64.5 yrs
Verified
Follow-up
24 mo
Verified
Endpoint
—
Not found
Every extracted answer keeps its source
Results and Audit Trail ship together - verbatim quotes, page locations, confidence scores, and review flags so the table stays defensible.
Evidence_Table_Export.xlsx
Two sheets · one export| Question | Verbatim | Location | Conf. | Flag |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mean age | "The mean age of the study population was 64.5 ± 8.2 years at baseline." | Results · Table 1 Page 4 | 98% | Verified |
| Follow-up duration | "Participants were followed for a median of 24 months (IQR 18–30)." | Methods · §2.3 Page 2 | 95% | Verified |
| Sample size | "A total of 412 patients met eligibility and were included." | Abstract Page 1 | 99% | Verified |
| Primary endpoint | "Outcome data not explicitly reported in Table 4." | Results · Table 4 Page 12 | N/A | Not found |
| Intervention | "Active treatment with an SGLT2 inhibitor compared with matched placebo." | Methods · Interventions Page 3 | 81% | Needs review |
| Comparator | "Control participants received matched placebo tablets." | Methods · §2.1 Page 3 | 96% | Verified |
| Adverse events | "Safety events were described narratively without a consistent severity scale." | Results · Safety Page 9 | 74% | Ambiguous |
Extraction without a paper trail is just a guess
Every cell can point back to the source language, the page it came from, and a status flag when the paper is silent or ambiguous.
- Verbatim quotes keep the exact wording behind each answer.
- Locations cite section, table, and page for rapid verification.
- Status flags surface not found, ambiguous, and needs-review answers before you publish.
- Human verification confirms or corrects each answer against the PDF. Highlighted quotes are AI-cited evidence; Verified means a person checked them.
Smith_2023_RCT.pdf
Page 4 · Results · Baseline characteristicsLinked to Excel · Mean age
Table 1 summarizes demographic and clinical characteristics. The mean age of the study population was 64.5 ± 8.2 years at baseline. Sixty-two percent of participants were male.
VerifiedConfidence 98%
Live audit signals
Latest from the blog
Guides on evidence tables, systematic reviews, and HEOR workflows.
Resolving Dual-Extraction Disagreements: A Field-Level Adjudication Ladder
A concise, source-linked ladder for resolving cell-by-cell disagreements between two human extractors — with explicit decision rules and audit trail requirements.
Read article →Evidence table builder online: model-ready, audit-proof evidence tables for HEOR and HTA
Model-ready means each value has a field, unit, timepoint and source. Audit-proof means a dossier number traces to the page and the reviewer.
Read article →New in Builder: Extraction Templates for Faster, More Consistent Evidence Extraction
Extraction Templates in Builder let you start faster, reuse proven question sets, autosave custom setups, and keep extraction workflows consistent across projects.
Read article →Quality Assessment in EvidenceTableBuilder: What Each Profile Does (and What’s Live Today)
A tour of the Quality Assessment workspace: AI-assisted, evidence-linked drafts for RoB 2, ROBINS-I, NOS, ROBIS, AMSTAR 2, NHLBI checklists, and CORE, plus the roadmap of appraisal profiles on the way.
Read article →AI as a Second Extractor in HEOR Systematic Reviews: A Practical Framework
A practical HEOR framework for using AI as the second extractor: where it works, where it fails, and how to keep outputs audit-ready.
Read article →
Questions researchers ask first
Work with a professional
Need hands-on help with evidence tables, systematic reviews, or quality assessment? Request a consultation and we'll follow up within 24 hours.
Next step
Build your next evidence table with a paper trail
Upload studies, define your questions, and export Results plus Audit Trail in one pass.