One Methodology Team Across Every Review Type
Most providers specialize in a single review format and quietly bend every question to fit it. The harder skill is matching the method to the question, because an umbrella review, a rapid review, and a full systematic review answer very different needs. At Research Gold, our evidence synthesis services cover every major review type across health sciences, nursing, psychology, education, social sciences, and beyond. Whether you need an umbrella review for a clinical guideline, a rapid review for a policy brief, or a narrative review to contextualize your primary research, our PhD methodologists deliver rigorous, publication-ready work following established methodological frameworks. Research Gold matches you with a PhD methodologist published in your field, so the reviewer who synthesizes your evidence already knows its literature and reporting conventions.
Review Types We Offer
Systematic Review
Our flagship service. A systematic review follows the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions, version 6.5 (Higgins JPT, Thomas J, et al., 2024) with PRISMA 2020 reporting (Page et al., BMJ, 2021). Includes protocol development, comprehensive search, dual-reviewer screening, risk of bias assessment, and narrative or quantitative synthesis.
Learn more about our systematic review writing services
Meta-Analysis
Quantitative pooling of effect sizes using R or Stata. Includes forest plots, funnel plots, heterogeneity assessment, subgroup analyses, meta-regression, GRADE tables, and fully reproducible code. Available standalone or bundled with a systematic review.
Learn more about our meta-analysis service
Scoping Review
Evidence mapping using JBI methodology and PRISMA-ScR guidelines (Tricco et al., 2018). Ideal for exploring broad topics, identifying evidence gaps, and informing future research priorities.
Learn more about our scoping review service
Umbrella Review
An umbrella review (also called a review of reviews, or an overview of reviews) synthesizes the findings of multiple systematic reviews on a related topic. It provides a high-level overview of the evidence landscape and is commonly used for clinical guidelines and health technology assessments. We follow the JBI Manual for Evidence Synthesis umbrella review methodology (Aromataris et al., 2024) and apply AMSTAR 2 (Shea et al., BMJ, 2017) to appraise the methodological quality of the included reviews, then rate certainty of evidence with GRADE (Guyatt et al., BMJ, 2008).
Rapid Review
A rapid review uses streamlined systematic review methods to deliver findings on a compressed schedule, following Cochrane Rapid Reviews Methods Group guidance (Garritty et al., 2021). Depending on the decision timeline, it may use simplified search strategies, single-reviewer screening with second-reviewer verification, or narrative synthesis instead of meta-analysis. Rapid reviews are commonly requested for policy decisions, organizational planning, and time-sensitive clinical questions, where a full systematic review is not the right tool for the deadline at hand.
Narrative Review
A narrative review provides a comprehensive, qualitative summary of the literature on a topic without the strict systematic methodology of a systematic review. While less rigorous for answering specific clinical questions, narrative reviews are valuable for introducing a topic, providing context in a discussion section, or supporting editorial commentary.
Living Systematic Review
A living systematic review is continually updated as new evidence becomes available. It is particularly valuable for rapidly evolving fields such as infectious disease, pharmacology, and clinical trial evidence. We can set up the initial review infrastructure and provide periodic updates on an agreed schedule.
