Silvi.ai
Screening and extraction built for meta-analysis and HTA submissions.
At a Glance
- Publisher
- Silvi.ai
- Coverage
An end-to-end tool for systematic literature review and meta-analysis — screening, data extraction and analysis-ready outputs — with workflows aimed at health technology assessment and regulatory evidence as well as academic reviews. Not a literature database (verify current features and database integrations).
- Access
Subscription, with academic and commercial tiers; pricing is quote-based for teams.
- Free alternative
- ASReview for screening plus R or RevMan for the meta-analysis.
- Regional
Global, Denmark-based, with strong European HTA orientation.
Our Take
Silvi is narrower than Covidence or DistillerSR and better for it: the extraction step is built with meta-analysis and HTA dossiers in mind, so numeric outcome data comes out in a shape you can actually analyse rather than as free text to retype. It appears consistently in university evidence-synthesis guides as the recommendation for quantitative-synthesis-heavy work. It’s a paid tool in a category with capable free options, so the case for it rests on how much of your time goes into extraction — if that step is your bottleneck, it pays back; if screening is, look at ASReview first.
Power Tips
- Its edge is structured outcome extraction — set up the extraction template carefully and the meta-analysis nearly falls out.
- Ask about academic pricing directly; the listed commercial tiers are aimed at HTA consultancies.
- Supports inductive text analysis too, so it’s not purely a quantitative tool.
Alternatives & Complements
Covidence, DistillerSR, Nested Knowledge, ASReview, Rayyan
Figures last verified: July 28, 2026