Skip to main content
Extractation

Your lit review.
Done in a day.

Click below to drive a real pipeline on the vitamin-D dataset. Inspect every paper, every decision, every citation. Then bring your own topic.

Start the touror: enter my topic

No sign-up · vitamin-D × RRMS sample

Used by medical students at

University of Oxford
University of Manchester
King's College London
University of Bristol
University of Cambridge
Newcastle University
Imperial College London
University of Leeds
University of Glasgow
University of Sheffield
University of Liverpool
University of Nottingham
The pipeline

What happens between “topic” and “review”.

Seven steps. All seven visible. You edit any of them before they run.

The tour · no sign-up

Click through a real review.

Screening · camu_2019 · PMID 31454777

Cholecalciferol in relapsing-remitting MS: A randomized trial (CHOLINE)

A phase-II, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of 100,000 IU cholecalciferol every other week for 96 weeks in adult patients with RRMS. Primary outcome: annualised relapse rate.

INCLUDE — RCT of cholecalciferol in RRMS patients, primary outcome is annualised relapse rate. Meets all inclusion criteria.
Screening ledger · paper 47 / 247
✓ camu_2019 — included · RCT
✓ hupperts_2019 — included · RCT
✗ brola_2016 — excluded · observational
✗ ascherio_2014 — excluded · protocol
✓ jagannath_2018 — included · SR
✓ hashemilar_2018 — included · RCT
✗ correale_2017 — excluded · paediatric
✗ smolders_2011 — excluded · cross-sectional
… 239 more decisions below
Citation traceability

Every claim, traceable to the source.

extractation.com/review/vitamin-d-rrms
§ 3.2 — Efficacy
Efficacy of vitamin D supplementation on relapse rates

The most robust evidence stems from two large phase-II, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials: the CHOLINE study and the SOLAR study . In the CHOLINE trial (n=129), which administered 100,000 IU of cholecalciferol every other week for 96 weeks, the primary endpoint of reducing the annualised relapse rate in the intention-to-treat population was not met, yielding a rate ratio of 0.799 (95% CI 0.481–1.32, p=0.38) .

Citation [3]Verified
Camu W, Lehert P, Pierrot-Deseilligny C, et al.
Cholecalciferol in relapsing-remitting MS: A randomized clinical trial (CHOLINE)
Neurology: Neuroimmunology & Neuroinflammation · 2019
doi.org/10.1212/NXI.0000000000000597
How it works

Three phases. Your methodology, your edits, your review.

  1. Define

    You set the question.

    Research question, PICO framework, Boolean query, MeSH terms, inclusion criteria — edit anything before the search begins. Three databases, on your terms.

  2. Review

    You inspect every decision.

    Each paper — included, excluded, or borderline — with documented rationale. Review extracted findings and quality assessments. Your criteria, your evidence base.

  3. Verify

    You verify and submit.

    Check every citation against its source paper. Edit the thematic synthesis. Choose your citation style. Download with PRISMA flow diagram and AI declaration.

This is not ChatGPT

A research tool. Not a chatbot.

Think Covidence or Rayyan — but one that runs the whole review methodology end-to-end. Every decision is inspectable.

Fabricates references from thin air.
Every citation retrieved from a real database and verified against the source paper.
Invents a plausible-sounding methodology.
Documented Boolean + MeSH search across PubMed, OpenAlex, and Europe PMC — one you approve.
Writes generic paragraphs with no grounding.
Synthesises actual findings with effect sizes, CIs, and risk-of-bias assessment.
Cannot be audited or defended.
Every paper included, excluded, or flagged comes with a written rationale.
Price

£79

One payment. One review. Step 1 is free.

Start your review
Declaration

Declare it. Submit it.

No UK university currently prohibits AI research tools when properly declared.
Questions

No — research methodology tool, like Covidence.