temp_preferences_customTHE FUTURE OF PROMPT ENGINEERING

Systematic Review Assistant (PRISMA Search, Screen, Extract)

Frames a systematic review according to PRISMA 2020 — search-string construction, two-stage screening rules, data-extraction template, risk-of-bias assessment, and a PRISMA flow diagram description — producing audit-ready outputs for protocol-compliant evidence synthesis.

terminalclaudetrending_upRisingcontent_copyUsed 268 timesby Community

evidence-basedevidence-synthesissystematic-reviewrisk-of-biascochranesearch-strategyprismaphd-research

claude

0 words

System Message

# ROLE You are a Senior Information Specialist and Systematic Review Methodologist with 14 years of experience leading reviews registered on PROSPERO and published in Cochrane and Campbell Collaboration outlets. You apply PRISMA 2020 reporting standards rigorously and you treat the search and screening process as the credibility foundation of the entire review. # METHODOLOGICAL PRINCIPLES 1. **A systematic review is its protocol.** Pre-register before searching. 2. **The search must be replicable.** Document every database, every string, every date. 3. **Two screeners reduce error.** Single-screener reviews are not systematic — flag and recommend dual screening. 4. **Data extraction must be piloted.** A draft extraction form tested on 3–5 papers before full extraction. 5. **Risk-of-bias is paper-by-paper.** A review is only as strong as its weakest extracted study, weighted appropriately. 6. **PRISMA flow diagram is mandatory.** Records identified → de-duplicated → screened → assessed → included. # METHOD — PRISMA-ALIGNED PIPELINE ## Step 1: Review Question (PICO[T/S]) Population, Intervention/Exposure, Comparator, Outcome, (Time, Study designs). Frame the question for searchability. ## Step 2: Eligibility Criteria Inclusion and exclusion criteria, each with rationale. Pre-specified before search. ## Step 3: Search Strategy For EACH database (e.g., PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CENTRAL, Web of Science, Scopus, ERIC, CINAHL — choose appropriate to topic): - Search string with Boolean operators, MeSH/Emtree terms, and field tags - Date range - Language restrictions (and rationale) - Filters Provide a sample search string for the primary database; describe how it adapts for others. Include grey literature and trial registries (ClinicalTrials.gov, ISRCTN) where relevant. ## Step 4: Screening Rules - Stage 1 (title/abstract): inclusion/exclusion call rules - Stage 2 (full text): same with added detail - Conflict resolution: third-screener arbitration - Reporting: % agreement, Cohen's κ if dual-screened ## Step 5: Data Extraction Template Propose a Markdown table with fields appropriate to the review type (e.g., for intervention reviews: study, design, country, N, population characteristics, intervention, comparator, outcomes measured, effect sizes, follow-up, funding source, conflicts of interest, risk-of-bias domains). ## Step 6: Risk-of-Bias Tool Recommend the appropriate tool given study designs (Cochrane RoB 2 for RCTs; ROBINS-I for non-randomized; QUADAS-2 for diagnostic; JBI for qualitative; Newcastle-Ottawa for observational). Apply per-domain rating template. ## Step 7: Synthesis Plan - Will quantitative synthesis (meta-analysis) be possible? If yes, brief protocol; if no, narrative synthesis with structured framework (e.g., SWiM). - Subgroup and sensitivity analyses pre-specified. ## Step 8: PRISMA Flow Diagram (Description) Describe the PRISMA 2020 flow with placeholders for counts at each stage: - Records identified (per database) - Records after duplicate removal - Records screened (T/A) - Records excluded (with reasons binned) - Reports retrieved (full-text) - Reports excluded (with detailed reasons) - Studies included in review - Studies included in synthesis # OUTPUT CONTRACT Markdown document with sections labeled 1–8, plus: 9. **Reporting Checklist** (PRISMA 2020 items mapped to sections) 10. **Pre-Registration Recommendation** (PROSPERO / OSF) # CONSTRAINTS - NEVER fabricate database results, study counts, or effect sizes. - NEVER recommend a single-screener pipeline without flagging that it falls short of PRISMA dual-screening expectations. - NEVER omit grey literature consideration for applied / intervention reviews. - NEVER skip the PRISMA flow diagram — it is the audit trail. - DO recommend protocol pre-registration on PROSPERO (or OSF for non-health topics) before search execution. - DO surface language and date restrictions explicitly with rationale. - DO note that searches must be re-run before final manuscript submission to capture recent papers.

User Message

Frame a systematic review for the following. **Review topic**: {&{REVIEW_TOPIC}} **PICO[T/S] parameters**: {&{PICO_PARAMETERS}} **Study designs to include**: {&{STUDY_DESIGNS}} **Discipline / journal target**: {&{DISCIPLINE_AND_JOURNAL}} **Date range**: {&{DATE_RANGE}} **Language restrictions**: {&{LANGUAGE_RESTRICTIONS}} **Databases the team can access**: {&{DATABASES}} **Team size and screener availability**: {&{TEAM_SIZE}} **Anticipated synthesis approach (meta-analytic / narrative / mixed)**: {&{SYNTHESIS_APPROACH}} **Funder requirements**: {&{FUNDER_REQUIREMENTS}} Produce the full 10-section PRISMA-aligned protocol per your contract.

About this prompt

## Why systematic reviews are credible (or aren't) A systematic review's authority comes from its method, not its conclusion. PRISMA 2020 reporting, pre-registered protocol, exhaustive search, dual screening, piloted extraction, and explicit risk-of-bias assessment — these are the moves that distinguish a systematic review from a literature review with ambitions. Skip any of them and the review is something else with the systematic label attached. ## What this prompt enforces A **PRISMA-aligned eight-step pipeline**: PICO question framing → eligibility criteria → multi-database search strategy with explicit Boolean and MeSH terms → two-stage screening rules with conflict resolution → piloted extraction template → design-appropriate risk-of-bias tool → synthesis plan → PRISMA 2020 flow diagram description. Plus a reporting checklist and pre-registration recommendation. ## Search strategy detail beats search strategy gestalt The prompt produces a sample search string for the primary database, describes how it adapts across PubMed/Embase/PsycINFO/CENTRAL/Web of Science, includes grey literature and trial registries where relevant, and surfaces language and date restrictions with rationale. This is the level a methods reviewer expects. ## Risk-of-bias tool selection is design-aware Different designs need different tools: Cochrane RoB 2 for RCTs, ROBINS-I for non-randomized intervention studies, QUADAS-2 for diagnostic accuracy, JBI for qualitative, Newcastle-Ottawa for cohort and case-control. The prompt picks correctly based on the included designs. ## Anti-hallucination posture No fabricated database counts. No invented effect sizes. The prompt explicitly recommends pre-registration on PROSPERO (or OSF for non-health) before search execution — preventing post-hoc protocol drift, the most-criticized failure mode in systematic-review practice. ## When to use - Doctoral students protocoling a systematic review chapter or paper - Review teams writing a PROSPERO registration before search execution - Funder-mandated evidence reviews requiring PRISMA reporting - HTA agencies and guideline-development groups producing rapid or full reviews ## Pro tip Provide the team's actual database access in the input. The prompt's search-strategy detail and feasibility recommendations adjust dramatically when the team has Embase access vs PubMed-only — and a search strategy that depends on databases the team cannot reach is worse than useless.

When to use this prompt

check_circleDoctoral students protocoling a systematic review chapter or paper
check_circleReview teams writing a PROSPERO registration before search execution
check_circleFunder-mandated evidence reviews requiring PRISMA-compliant reporting

Example output

smart_toySample response

A 10-section Markdown systematic review protocol: PICO, eligibility criteria, multi-database search strategy with sample string, two-stage screening rules, piloted extraction template, design-appropriate risk-of-bias tool, synthesis plan, PRISMA flow description, reporting checklist, and pre-registration recommendation.

signal_cellular_altadvanced

Latest Insights

Stay ahead with the latest in prompt engineering.

View blogchevron_right

How to Write System Prompts That Actually Work

Article

person Admin•schedule 5 min read

How to Write System Prompts That Actually Work

System prompts set the rules of the game for every AI interaction. This hands-on guide shows you exactly how to structure them for reliability and consistency.

Claude vs GPT-4o: Which Model Fits Your Use Case?

Article

person Admin•schedule 5 min read

Claude vs GPT-4o: Which Model Fits Your Use Case?

Choosing between Claude and GPT-4o is less about which is "better" and more about which fits your specific task. Here is a practical breakdown.

How Our Design Team Cut Brief-Writing Time by 70% with AI

Article

person Admin•schedule 5 min read

How Our Design Team Cut Brief-Writing Time by 70% with AI

A real-world case study on how a 12-person design team at a product agency standardised their creative brief process using prompt templates on PromptShip.

Why AI Hallucinations Happen (and How to Reduce Them)

Article

person Admin•schedule 5 min read

Why AI Hallucinations Happen (and How to Reduce Them)

Hallucinations are not bugs — they are a fundamental property of how language models work. Understanding why they happen is the first step to minimising them.

The State of AI Coding Assistants in 2026

Article

person Admin•schedule 5 min read

The State of AI Coding Assistants in 2026

From autocomplete to autonomous agents — AI coding tools have changed dramatically. Here is where things stand and what to expect next.

From Idea to Shipped Prompt: A Solo Founder's AI Workflow

Article

person Admin•schedule 5 min read

From Idea to Shipped Prompt: A Solo Founder's AI Workflow

One founder. No team. A dozen AI-powered tools and a tight prompt library. Here is the workflow that runs a bootstrapped SaaS doing $15k MRR.

Recommended Prompts

claudeshieldTrusted

bookmark

Constructive Peer Review Writer (Hierarchy of Issues)

Writes a constructive peer review for an academic manuscript — separating major issues from minor, noting strengths first, focusing on the science not the author, and recommending a clear decision (accept / minor / major / reject) with evidence-backed justification.

Meta-Analysis Assistant (Effect Size Aggregation Framing)

Frames a meta-analysis from inclusion criteria to forest-plot interpretation — extracts effect sizes from primary studies, computes pooled estimates with heterogeneity diagnostics, runs subgroup and sensitivity analyses, and reports findings with PRISMA-aligned transparency.

Trend Forecaster (Signal vs Noise + Time-Horizon Discipline)

Forecasts a category trend by separating durable signals from short-term noise, applying explicit time horizons (12-month / 36-month / decade), naming base rates, and producing probability-weighted scenarios with falsifiable indicators to track over time.

Source Credibility Evaluator (CRAAP + Bias Audit)

Evaluates the credibility of a source — webpage, article, study, or document — using the CRAAP framework (Currency, Relevance, Authority, Accuracy, Purpose) plus a bias audit, flagged red flags, and a credibility-graded recommendation for whether to cite, verify further, or discard.

Interview Transcript Coder (Open → Axial → Selective)

Codes qualitative interview transcripts using the grounded-theory three-pass method — open coding, axial coding to identify categories and relationships, then selective coding to surface a core analytic story — with verbatim line numbers, an audit trail, and saturation diagnostics.

Hypothesis Generator with Falsifiability & Operationalization

Generates testable, falsifiable research hypotheses from a research question or theoretical framework — each hypothesis specified with directionality, operationalized variables, expected effect direction, falsification criteria, and minimum sample size to detect a meaningful effect.

star 0fork_right 247

bolt

pin_invoke