Overview

RevMan supports diagnostic test accuracy, intervention, methodology, overview, prognosis, qualitative and flexible reviews. It brings writing and analysis together, but it does not provide a screening workflow. Teams that need screening as part of the same process should choose a tool that covers that stage.

Key features

Review authors can edit separate parts simultaneously and see who else is working on a review. Ready-made or custom templates, structured headings and Cochrane methodological guidance give collaborators a common framework without limiting them to a single template.

For quantitative analysis, RevMan handles pairwise meta-analyses, sensitivity and subgroup analyses, and fixed-effects, random-effects, Mantel-Haenszel and inverse-variance models. Forest, SROC and funnel plots, risk-of-bias assessments and PRISMA flow diagrams connect analysis and reporting in one workspace. That breadth is useful for authors who need these methods and outputs; it is more than a screening-focused project requires.

Authors can import study data and references from Covidence, and import RIS references using data from Crossref, PubMed or CRS. GRADEpro integration is unavailable for non-Cochrane reviews, and Cochrane Library data cannot be downloaded and reused in RevMan, so those are real boundaries for teams planning their evidence workflow around those sources.

Cochrane says RevMan Web complies with GDPR for processing personal data of people in the EU, encrypts data at rest and uses 256-bit SSL for communications. It is hosted on AWS, uses Cochrane Account single sign-on with OpenID Connect, and customer data hosted by AWS is in London and Ireland. After a subscription ends, subscribers can access reviews and their history for 60 days.

Pricing

RevMan has free access routes as well as paid annual and organization subscriptions. The Practice review plan costs 0.00 USD per free, but the review is deleted after 30 days, cannot be exported and is limited to one person. It works for a brief individual practice exercise, not a continuing project or collaborative review.

Cochrane author access costs 0.00 USD per free and provides free RevMan Web access to authors working on Cochrane Reviews. For other individual users, the Individual student annual subscription is 80.00 GBP per year, billed £80.00 + VAT (EU & UK); the Individual academic annual subscription is 100.00 GBP per year, billed £100.00 + VAT (EU & UK); and the Individual standard annual subscription is 130.00 GBP per year. Eligibility for student and academic plans is shown after login. The standard plan is the individual option for those who do not qualify for the lower eligibility-based rates.

The Organization subscription is custom pricing: it starts at £560 for up to 8 users, with the price varying by organization type and seat count. It is the relevant option for an institution buying access for a group, rather than an individual seat. A 30-day trial is offered; check the subscription terms that apply to your plan before committing.

Platforms

RevMan is available on Linux, macOS, Windows and the web. RevMan Web supports Chrome, Firefox and newer versions of Edge, but mobile devices and touchscreen use are not supported. Desktop and browser-based teams can use it; readers who need to work on a phone or tablet should look elsewhere.

Who it's for

RevMan is a good fit for review authors who want structured writing alongside established meta-analysis methods and visual outputs, especially when collaborators need to work on different sections at once. Students and academics should check eligibility for the lower-priced subscriptions. It is a poor fit for mobile-first work, screening workflows, or a project that needs lasting access through the practice plan.

Pros and cons

Pro: Broad review-type support and multiple meta-analysis models make it relevant beyond intervention reviews.
Pro: Simultaneous editing, templates and structured headings support coordinated authoring.
Pro: Built-in plots, risk-of-bias assessments and PRISMA diagrams keep key review outputs close to the analysis.
Con: The Practice review plan deletes work after 30 days, offers no export and allows only one person per review.
Con: No screening workflow and no mobile or touchscreen support leave important needs outside its scope.
Con: GRADEpro integration is limited to Cochrane reviews, and Cochrane Library data cannot be reused in RevMan.

Alternatives

For teams that need screening rather than RevMan’s analysis-and-writing focus, ASReview is free and open source, with no licensing fees or subscriptions; running it on your own hardware or server may still cost money. Rayyan is another freemium option, with Android, iOS and web access; its free plan is capped at 3 active reviews, 2 free reviewers and 1 sample, with limited mobile app access.

Bibliometrix is a free open-source R package with a Biblioshiny web interface. Elicit is a freemium research tool with a free Basic plan. EviSynth is a free, open-source option for academic use with unlimited collaborators. Litmaps offers web-based literature mapping, with a free tier limited to 20 inputs, 100 articles and one Litmap, and no collaboration. Abstrackr is a completely free web option with no seat limits or usage caps. Buhos is another alternative.

Compare options in Literature Review Software and Systematic Review Software.

Verdict

Choose RevMan if you are writing a systematic review and want structured collaborative authoring, supported meta-analysis methods and review visualizations in one workflow. Its strongest case is the breadth of analysis and reporting tools; its main drawbacks are the practice plan’s deletion and export limits, lack of screening, and inability to work on mobile. For ongoing work, select a paid plan that matches your eligibility and seat needs rather than relying on the short-lived practice option.

	RevMan	SyRF
Free plan	Yes	Yes
Free trial	Yes	No
Paid from	£6.67/mo	Free
Open source	No	No
Platforms	Linux, macOS, Web, Windows	Web
Free plan	Yes	Yes
Reference deduplication	—	No
Data extraction	—	Yes
Full-text storage	—	Yes
Protocol support	—	Yes
Review types	—	systematic review, meta-analysis

RevMan vs SyRF

RevMan

SyRF