Mapped Research

Overview

Mapped Research is a web platform for systematic reviews and meta-analyses, aimed particularly at medical researchers managing evidence synthesis. Its strongest case is for teams that want screening, statistical analysis and publication exports together; its capped free tier and project-based paid plans are less appealing for open-ended use on a tight budget.

Key features

Workflows cover intervention, prognostic, diagnostic test accuracy, network meta-analysis and scoping reviews. PRISMA variants are applied by study type, with Cochrane, GRADE and CINeMA integrated into the workflow. That methodological range gives reviewers more than a screening workspace, especially when they need structured guidance through different review designs.

Statistical analysis uses the R packages metafor, mada and netmeta, and the platform produces publication-ready plots. Plots export at 600 DPI in PNG, SVG, PDF or EPS; manuscripts can go to Word, PDF, LaTeX or Google Docs. This is a practical route from analysis toward publication, but less compelling for researchers already committed to separate analysis and writing tools.

Collaboration brings five roles, stage-level permissions, dual-reviewer workflows, conflict resolution and an audit trail. Google Sheets, Docs, Drive and Slides are supported, as are Zotero, Mendeley, EndNote and RefWorks through RIS and BibTeX. The combination suits teams that need review decisions and handoffs managed together. AI provides suggestions, while researchers retain final decisions; research data is not used to train models without separate opt-in consent.

Mapped states that data is protected in transit with TLS 1.3 and at rest with AES-256, on SOC 2 Type II compliant cloud infrastructure. Data is processed and stored in the United States. After account deletion, data is permanently purged following a 30-day export grace period. Support is available by contacting the company, with feature guides and blog tutorials for self-service help. An API is on the roadmap for Custom Enterprise plans, with a Q3 2026 target, so teams needing API access now should not treat it as a current capability.

Pricing

The Free plan costs 0.00 USD per free and allows up to 1,000 screening citations, 200 AI-assisted screenings and three collaborators. It includes PRISMA auto-generation and open-access full-text retrieval, making it a useful starting point for smaller reviews, but the screening and AI quotas constrain larger projects.

Mapped Project is 79.00 USD per once, billed $119$79/project (Launch Pricing). It raises the limits to 3,000 screening citations and 3,000 AI-assisted screenings, adds data extraction and risk of bias for 10 studies each, permits up to 10 collaborators and includes one reset per workflow step. It fits a defined, modest project, though study-level caps and a single reset leave less room for changes or growth.

Mapped Team is 139.00 USD per once, billed $199$139/project (Launch Pricing). It allows 5,000 citations and AI-assisted screenings, extraction and risk-of-bias work for 50 studies each, unlimited collaborators and one reset per workflow step. Larger teams benefit from the collaborator allowance, but the project quotas still make it a bounded purchase rather than an unlimited subscription.

Custom Enterprise has custom pricing and adds SSO, a central admin console, volume pricing, purchase orders and invoicing, dedicated onboarding and training, plus unlimited projects and team members. It is the fit for institutions standardizing work across teams; solo reviewers are unlikely to need its administrative scope.

Platforms

Mapped Research runs on the web. That keeps it accessible through a browser, but it does not provide a listed native desktop or mobile platform.

Who it's for

Medical researchers, from solo clinicians to institution-backed professors, are the intended audience. Free is the sensible entry point for a small review; Project suits a modest one with several collaborators; Team is better for larger groups and higher study caps. Institutions needing centralized administration can consider Enterprise. Researchers who need larger quotas without per-project purchases, or a native mobile app, should look elsewhere.

Pros and cons

• Pros: Multiple review designs and established methodological frameworks are integrated into the workflow, reducing the need to stitch together separate review-management stages.
• Pros: Dual-reviewer processes, conflict resolution, stage permissions and an audit trail address the coordination demands of collaborative evidence synthesis.
• Pros: High-resolution plot exports and manuscript formats support publication workflows beyond screening and analysis.
• Cons: Free access is capped at 1,000 citations and 200 AI-assisted screenings, limiting its usefulness for substantial reviews without a paid project.
• Cons: Paid Project and Team tiers cap study counts and workflow resets, so evolving reviews may outgrow their allowances.
• Cons: Data is stored and processed in the United States, which may not suit every institution's data requirements.

Alternatives

For a broader comparison of tools in this category, see AI Literature Review Software.

• Axelium is worth considering for a browser-and-extension workflow; its free plan is limited to one lifetime review and one seat.
• Moara may suit readers focused on a paper library, search and reference tools, with a free tier capped at 50 papers per review library.
• Rayyan is an alternative for teams that want Android or iOS access as well as web; its free plan allows three active reviews and two free reviewers.
• ASReview is the alternative for readers who prioritize free, open-source software and can run it on their own hardware or server.
• INRA may fit teams seeking annual per-seat pricing; its Teams & Institutions plan is $90.00 per seat per year with a three-seat minimum.
• Evidentum is another free web-based option.
• EPPI-Reviewer is developed and maintained by the EPPI Centre, which the maker describes as part of UCL’s Social Science Research Unit and UCL Social Research Institute.
• PICO Portal offers a free plan with one project, unlimited citations and unlimited collaborators.

Verdict

Mapped Research is a strong fit for medical researchers who want review methods, screening, analysis, collaboration and publication exports in one web workspace. Its breadth is the main reason to choose it; the project quotas and United States data location are the main reasons to look elsewhere. Start with Free for a small review, and move to Project or Team only when their study and screening caps match the work ahead.