A AMRA-LAB
Research Skills · AI-Assisted Literature Review
Best Literature Review Tools
Learn a practical workflow using Consensus, Elicit and ResearchRabbit—from defining a research question to discovering papers, screening evidence, mapping citations, organizing themes and writing a transparent literature review.
Consensus
Elicit
ResearchRabbit
Evidence Synthesis
Citation Mapping
C
Consensus
consensus.app
Ask research questions and explore evidence-linked answers from scientific papers.
≡
Elicit
elicit.com
Search, screen, compare and extract structured information from academic papers.
🐇
ResearchRabbit
researchrabbit.ai
Explore papers, authors and citation networks through visual discovery maps.
Basic-to-Advanced Learning Pathway
1
Complete Workflow
⌄
How to begin
- Write the topic in one sentence.
- Define what evidence is relevant and what should be excluded.
- List synonyms, abbreviations and alternative spellings.
- Decide whether your review is exploratory, narrative, scoping or systematic.
Example: “How does intermittent fasting affect insulin sensitivity in adults with overweight or obesity?”
PopulationAdults with overweight or obesity
InterventionIntermittent fasting
OutcomeInsulin sensitivity
⌄
Practical use
- Enter the research question in plain language.
- Review the answer summary, but do not stop there.
- Open the cited papers and check study design, sample, outcome and publication year.
- Refine the question and apply available filters to narrow the evidence.
- Record useful seed papers for Elicit and ResearchRabbit.
Good query: “Does intermittent fasting improve insulin sensitivity in adults with obesity?”
Best for: a quick orientation to a topic, checking whether evidence appears supportive, mixed or limited, and finding initial papers.
Open Consensus ↗
⌄
Practical use
- Enter the same focused question used in Step 2.
- Inspect title, abstract, year, citation information and relevance.
- Create useful columns such as population, sample size, intervention, control, outcome, method and limitation.
- Screen papers against your inclusion and exclusion criteria.
- Export or record the final study list and extracted evidence.
Recommended extraction fields: Author/year · study design · country · sample size · intervention · comparator · outcome · major finding · limitation.
Best for: turning an unstructured paper list into a transparent evidence table that is easier to compare.
Open Elicit ↗
⌄
Practical use
- Create a collection for the review topic.
- Add 3–10 highly relevant seed papers from Consensus or Elicit.
- Explore earlier work, later citing papers, similar papers and key authors.
- Use the visual map to identify clusters, influential articles and missing subtopics.
- Add relevant discoveries to the collection and rescreen them using your criteria.
Advanced strategy: Choose one foundational paper, one recent review and one high-quality experimental study as starting seeds.
Best for: expanding beyond keyword search and understanding how papers, authors and themes connect.
Open ResearchRabbit ↗
⌄
Build an evidence matrix
Create one row per study and columns for citation, study design, population, exposure/intervention, comparator, outcome, key result, limitation and quality note.
Group the evidence
- Organize papers by method, population, mechanism, outcome or chronology.
- Separate consistent evidence from mixed or contradictory findings.
- Record missing populations, short follow-up, small samples or methodological weaknesses.
- Do not treat citation count as a substitute for methodological quality.
Gap statement example: “Evidence is concentrated in short-term adult studies, while long-term effects and outcomes in older populations remain uncertain.”
⌄
Recommended writing structure
- Introduction: define the topic, importance and review objective.
- Search approach: briefly state databases/tools, keywords and screening criteria.
- Thematic synthesis: compare evidence across themes rather than summarizing one paper at a time.
- Critical appraisal: discuss strength, bias, inconsistency and generalizability.
- Research gaps: explain what remains unknown.
- Conclusion: provide a balanced answer to the research question.
Final verification: Open every cited source, confirm that it supports the claim, check author/year/title details and remove citations you have not personally verified.
↔
Which Tool Should You Use?
| Task | Consensus | Elicit | ResearchRabbit |
|---|---|---|---|
| Best starting point | Ask a direct research question | Run a structured paper search | Add strong seed papers |
| Main strength | Rapid evidence-linked orientation | Screening, comparison and extraction | Visual citation and author discovery |
| Best output | Initial answer and source list | Evidence table or research report | Paper collection and network map |
| Use with caution | Summary may hide study differences | Extraction still requires verification | Network relevance is not quality appraisal |
!
Responsible AI Use
Use AI to accelerate the workflow—not to replace scholarly judgment.
Always verify claims against the original paper, document your search and screening process, report limitations, and follow your university or journal policies on AI-assisted research. For a formal systematic review, also use appropriate bibliographic databases and a predefined protocol.