Silvi

Silvi is a web tool for organizing scientific literature into structured evidence for reviews and analysis. It supports the workflow from collecting studies and screening them to extracting information and analyzing results, including systematic reviews, meta-analyses, and network meta-analyses. Reviewers can make inclusion decisions individually or in bulk, with AI suggestions available for screening. For extraction, they can highlight PDF passages or use AI, then check and correct AI results. Extracted information can be arranged in tables, turned into plots, and exported. Team features include task assignments, multiple-reviewer requirements, and blinded decisions. Silvi lists imports from PubMed, OpenAlex, Web of Science, ERIC, Zotero, Mendeley, and EndNote. Open-access papers can be retrieved automatically; paywalled papers must be obtained through a university library. The free Basic plan includes unlimited reviews, and paid plans start at €19/mo. Silvi says it does not collect or use uploaded non-public full-text article content.

Silvi combines review workflows, extraction options, and team controls in a web-based tool. The free plan supports unlimited reviews, while AI extraction remains something users can check and correct.

Silvi suits researchers and teams building evidence reviews who need screening, extraction, analysis, and collaboration tools. It may also suit organizations creating searchable evidence libraries around their fields and questions.

Silvi is a browser-based workspace for systematic reviews and broader evidence synthesis. It is best suited to researchers and evidence teams that need a defensible path from imported citations to analysed data. Choose it for traceable extraction and review governance; look elsewhere if you need mobile apps or a large free allowance for automation.

Overview

Silvi organizes scientific literature into structured, searchable evidence libraries tailored to an organization’s questions and field. Its workflow covers collecting studies, deduplicating references, screening, extracting data, analysing results, and exporting the finished dataset. Supported review types include systematic reviews, meta-analyses, and network meta-analyses.

The design favors auditability. When you highlight text in a PDF, Silvi stores that passage alongside the extracted value, making it easier to verify where a result came from. Open-access papers are retrieved automatically; paywalled articles still have to be obtained through a university library. Account names and email addresses are handled under GDPR, uploaded non-public full-text content is not collected or used, and deleted account data is retained for three months before permanent deletion unless law requires otherwise.

Key features

Screening and reference management

Studies can be included or excluded individually or in bulk, and built-in deduplication removes repeated references before screening. AI screening suggestions are available on paid tiers, useful for reducing the first-pass workload but still requiring reviewer judgment on uncertain records. Imports cover PubMed, OpenAlex, Web of Science, ERIC, Zotero, Mendeley, and EndNote. The Web of Science RIS workflow accepts up to 1,000 records per export, so very large searches may need to be split.

Evidence extraction and analysis

Silvi supports manual extraction from highlighted PDF text as well as AI-assisted extraction. Users can check and correct AI results, an important safeguard when fields are ambiguous or source tables are difficult to parse. Extracted fields can be configured in tables, turned into plots, and exported in the preferred format. Full-text storage keeps the source material within the review workflow.

Team controls

Teams can assign tasks, require multiple reviewers, and blind reviewers’ decisions. Those controls fit formal review protocols and reduce the risk that one person’s decision influences another’s. Collaborative reviews and blinding are reserved for the Plus plan and above.

Pricing

Basic: Free, with no credit card required. It allows an unlimited number of reviews, easy screening, and transparent data extraction. This is a strong starting point for individual researchers, but it excludes the paid plans’ AI assistance and advanced collaboration features.

Rapid: €19 per month, billed monthly. It adds bulk screening, AI for screening, and AI for data extraction. Choose it when automation is worth a recurring fee; it does not include the Plus plan’s listed PubMed integration, collaborative reviews, or decision blinding.

Plus: €59 per month, billed annually at €708. It includes PubMed integration, collaborative reviews, and blinding of others’ decisions. The annual commitment suits established teams running governed reviews, less so occasional users who need flexibility.

Enterprise: Custom pricing, billed annually. It is aimed at large organizations and adds custom integrations, single sign-on, and flexible invoicing. Smaller projects have little reason to pay for this tier unless those administrative requirements are essential.

Platforms

Silvi runs on the web. There is no mobile platform listed, so work that depends on Android or iOS access will require another tool.

Who it's for

Silvi fits academic researchers, evidence-synthesis groups, and organizations building a maintained Evidence Library. The free Basic plan is particularly useful for independent reviewers who can work without AI or multi-reviewer controls. Rapid suits researchers facing sizable screening or extraction queues, while Plus is the practical choice for teams with formal independent-review procedures. It is less suitable for mobile-first users or projects that cannot obtain paywalled papers through institutional access.

Pros and cons

• Pro: Unlimited reviews on the free plan removes a major barrier for ongoing individual work.
• Pro: PDF highlights stored with extracted data provide a clear audit trail for evidence decisions.
• Pro: Broad scholarly imports and deduplication make it practical to consolidate search results.
• Pro: Paid AI screening and extraction can reduce repetitive work while retaining human correction.
• Con: AI features start at €19 per month, so the free tier is manual.
• Con: Collaboration and blinded decisions require the €59-per-month annual Plus plan.
• Con: Paywalled PDFs must be sourced through a university library, interrupting an otherwise centralized process.
• Con: Web-only access excludes teams that need a dedicated mobile workflow.

Alternatives

Pick Rayyan if you need Android or iOS alongside web and API access, or if three active reviews and two free reviewers are enough on its free plan. Choose Axelium for an extension-based workflow and a free lifetime review with one seat. Elicit is a better fit when unlimited searching across more than 138 million papers, summaries, and paper chat matter more than Silvi’s governed review process. Choose Systematicly for lightweight personal drafts and feasibility previews. Mapped Research suits projects needing up to 1,000 free screening citations, 200 AI-assisted screenings, PRISMA generation, and three collaborators. Moara is an option for libraries capped at 50 papers with Google Scholar and Semantic Scholar search. Scholarcy is aimed at article summarization rather than a complete systematic-review workflow. Choose Sysrev when unlimited public projects and public-project storage are the priority. For broader comparisons, see AI Literature Review Software and Systematic Review Software.

Verdict

Silvi is a strong choice for researchers and evidence teams that value traceable extraction, structured analysis, and controlled review decisions. Its unlimited free reviews make the core workflow accessible, while Rapid and Plus add automation and governance as projects grow. Look elsewhere if mobile access, generous free AI quotas, or a workflow centered on summaries rather than formal evidence synthesis is more important.