Research table generator for systematic reviews. You set the columns, review sources, and export to Excel.
An evidence table is a structured matrix of each study’s design, population, interventions/comparators, outcomes, and key findings. Capture those fields with human‑controlled workflows — AI assists where helpful — and export analysis‑ready Excel with Results plus a linked Audit Trail (verbatim quotes and page locations) for transparent, defensible tables.
Create a free account — 3 PDFs free, no card required.
Learn more: What is an evidence table?Columns for an evidence tableResolving dual‑extraction disagreements
Watch Evidence Table Builder turn research PDFs into structured, reviewable Excel outputs.
Built for evidence work
A focused extraction path—not another chat-with-PDF toy. Define what you need once, then reuse it across your corpus.
Drop one PDF or a full batch. Keep moving while files process.
Set the fields your evidence table needs—population, outcomes, follow-up, and more.
Receive structured Excel plus an Audit Trail sheet: quotes, locations, confidence, flags.
Batch intake
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
Output
Consistent columns for filtering and synthesis—plus a second sheet that keeps every answer accountable.
Results and Audit Trail ship together - verbatim quotes, page locations, confidence scores, and review flags so the table stays defensible.
| 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 |
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.
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.
Live audit signals
Guides on evidence tables, systematic reviews, and HEOR workflows.
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 →HEOR and HTA teams need structured extraction, traceability, and exports modelers can verify. This article sets out what to look for across your toolchain—and how an AI-assisted builder such as Evidence Table Builder fits: PDFs, configurable extraction fields, source-linked evidence, and Excel outputs you align to your own HTA or modeling templates.
Read article →What the levels of evidence pyramid means in systematic reviews — plain diagram language plus a worked example level.
Read article →Extraction Templates in Builder let you start faster, reuse proven question sets, autosave custom setups, and keep extraction workflows consistent across projects.
Read article →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 →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 →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
Upload studies, define your questions, and export Results plus Audit Trail in one pass.