Executive Summary

Systematic reviews today are frequently run through ad‑hoc spreadsheets, Trello boards and email, creating chaotic, non‑reproducible processes where teams waste weeks on duplicate screening, inconsistent inclusion decisions and missing audit trails; this pain is felt by an estimated 200,000 research teams and small clinical groups globally, plus the journals and funders increasingly requiring transparent workflows. Manual Title/Abstract screening and reconciliation remain bottlenecks that slow throughput and increase cost, and current workarounds do not scale for distributed, cross‑institution collaborations. You could build a SaaS product that combines kanban‑style, role‑aware workflows specifically modeled for systematic reviews with automation layers: transformer‑based screening suggestions, automated de‑duplication, PRISMA flowchart generation, integration with PubMed/Scopus/EndNote and full audit logs for reproducibility. Pricing at roughly $5,000 ACV per team maps to a $1.0B TAM (200,000 teams × $5k) and aligns with a Market Score of 90/100 and Revenue Potential of 86/100; adoption is more plausible now because transformer NLP has demonstrably reduced manual screening burdens in published pilots (commonly reported reductions in the 40–70% range), and funder/journal demands plus remote collaboration trends raise willingness to pay. To stand out versus medium competition (Covidence, Rayyan, DistillerSR and generic project tools) focus on a kanban‑first UX that makes status and accountability immediately visible, domain‑specific automation pipelines that are auditable and exportable, and a lightweight onboarding path with validated accuracy studies that you can publish. Realistic challenges include convincing conservative academic buyers, demonstrating model reliability across topics, managing privacy/compliance for clinical datasets, and higher initial CAC for sales into institutions; these require early validation pilots, a clear integration story, and partnerships with journals or funders to accelerate adoption.

Market Opportunity

Chaotic systematic reviews → kanban workflows + automation for reviewers targets a $1.0B = 200,000 research teams/institutions x $5,000 ACV (global researcher groups and small clinical teams adopting review software) total addressable market with medium saturation and a year-over-year growth rate of 12% estimated annual growth for niche research collaboration tools.

Key trends driving demand: AI-assisted screening -- transformer NLP reduces manual screening burden and accelerates throughput, increasing willingness to adopt dedicated tools.; Reproducibility push -- journals and funders demand transparent review processes and accessible workflows, driving software adoption.; Cloud collaboration -- remote, cross-institution teams need centralized, auditable platforms rather than ad-hoc Excel/Trello workarounds..

Key competitors include Covidence (Wiley), DistillerSR (Evidence Partners), Rayyan (Qatar Computing Research Institute / Pro version), EPPI-Reviewer (EPPI-Centre, UCL), Workarounds: Trello/Asana/Excel + reference managers (EndNote/Zotero).

Sign in to access

Chaotic systematic reviews → kanban workflows + automation for reviewers

Executive Summary

Market Validation

Market Opportunity

More in HealthTech

Replace manual pharmacy ops with AI-driven billing, inventory & CRM

Helping people manage stress & anxiety with a personalized AI companion

Cumbersome food logging -> passive AI meal capture with portion inference

HIPAA BAA blockers — AI contract review + pre-approved vendor marketplace

Reduce missed clinic appointments by automating patient outreach via WhatsApp

Too many leads not converting — automate patient conversion flow