Comparison
Symmathy vs Covidence
These tools solve different parts of a systematic review. Most well-run reviews use both. Here's a factual breakdown of what each does — we won't tell you one is "better" because that depends on which step you're at.
| What it does | Symmathy | Covidence |
|---|---|---|
| Primary step | Search & discovery | Screening & extraction |
| Database search | Federated across PubMed, Europe PMC, Cochrane, ClinicalTrials.gov, LILACS, J-STAGE, HAL, DOAJ, OpenAlex, CrossRef | Single-source import (you supply records from your own searches) |
| Non-English sources | LILACS, J-STAGE, HAL, ThaiJO with inline translation | Not part of the workflow |
| Dual-reviewer title/abstract screening | Export to a screening tool | Built-in, with conflict resolution |
| Full-text review | Out of scope | Built-in PDF management |
| Risk of bias / data extraction | Out of scope | Built-in templates |
| PRISMA flow diagram | Auto-logs search-side numbers | Auto-builds the diagram from screening decisions |
| Pricing model | Per-user SaaS, free tier | Institutional license, per-review |
How they fit together
Run the search in Symmathy → export RIS → import into Covidence → screen, extract, and assess risk of bias. Symmathy fills the gap between "I have a question" and "I have a deduplicated record set to screen". Covidence takes over from there.
When you might only need one
Narrative reviews, scoping searches, or clinical question lookups often don't need the dual-reviewer machinery — Symmathy alone is enough. Conversely, if your search was already done by a medical librarian who handed you a deduplicated record set, you can skip straight to Covidence.