Use the live research desk
Use the study register to freeze a local question and protocol, then preview references from the Evidence Library or a mapped CSV. Inspect proposed duplicates before combining reports. Preserve the original citation rows, recorded search provenance, screening reasons and protocol/source revisions.
Record title/abstract decisions in two labeled lanes, resolve a disagreement with a reason, record whether a full report was obtained, then screen that report. Both lanes can be entered by the same person. The software counts included reports and unresolved work exactly; it establishes no independent review or unique-study count. Optional extraction inputs preserve an estimate, unit, interval, source reference and unknown fields without pooling effects.
The existing narrative extraction desk remains available for intervention-specific question, bias and synthesis notes. Its earlier saved records and key are unchanged. There is no automatic migration or approval between the two workspaces.
Your workspace stays in this browser. Save records, edit them or fork frozen versions, export JSON, a research memo or CSV, and import a backup with an explicit replacement step. Deleting or clearing offers an undo while the page remains open. No notes are submitted to Charitology. The institutional goals below remain the program’s longer-term charter.
What it is
A systematic review gathers the good studies on a question, judges how strong each one is and reports what they show together. Evidence Reviews applies that discipline to the interventions charity pays for, and publishes each review in the Intervention Database.
How it works
Every review follows one format. It says what the intervention does and how it is supposed to work. It grades the evidence as strong, moderate, mixed, weak or unknown. And it records where the work sits on the depth scale, how soon its effects arrive, how long they last and who designed it: the community, the community with outside experts, or outsiders alone. Where cost data exists, the review gives a cost range with its date and source.
The program builds on reviews that already exist instead of redoing them. Cochrane, a global network of health researchers, professionals, patients and carers, publishes systematic reviews in health. The Campbell Collaboration produces evidence syntheses for economic and social policy. Where one of their reviews covers an intervention, Evidence Reviews summarizes it in plain language and links to it. Where none exists, contributors write a lighter review and say so.
Why it matters for the system
The Measurement Gap concerns the difference between counting activity and estimating its effects. A small charity may benefit from evaluation partners and shared research. If a good review shows that an intervention works in settings like its own, the charity can borrow that knowledge instead of building it from scratch. Shared reviews turn measurement from a cost every organization pays separately into a common good the whole field can use.
Reviews also make the gaps visible. An intervention graded unknown is a finding, and a target for the Replication Program or for new research.
Risks and limits
Evidence from one place doesn’t always carry over to another. Each review should say where its studies were done and who took part, so readers can judge how far the results travel. Reviews also go stale as new studies appear, so each one should say when it was last checked.
What success looks like
Within five years, the most widely funded interventions each have a current, graded review, and donors and charities cite those reviews when they decide what to fund.
Study register
Keep a question, citation records and screening decisions together. This private register is shared between the Evidence Library and Evidence Reviews in this browser. Reviewer labels are self-recorded; they do not establish independent review. Nothing is submitted or published automatically.
431 published references can be selected for import. References begin with unknown classification. A source on this site is not automatically a study, an executed search or evidence of an intervention's effect.
The register is loading. The published sources and existing extraction desk remain readable below.
Start from the published evidence register
Read an existing intervention and its primary sources, then use it to scope a review. These entries remain editorial drafts; opening a source is not a completed review.
For several studies, save one extraction per study with the same review question. Export all records to keep the selection log and synthesis together. The workspace does not run a literature search or calculate a pooled effect.
Narrative extraction desk
New recordDefine a reproducible question and search, extract a study, examine its limits and write a synthesis that preserves disagreement.
Your work stays in this browser. Export a backup to move it elsewhere. Entries are your research notes, not verified findings or ratings.
Opening this browser’s saved copy. No write has been made.