Loading skill
Install any skill in seconds. Free to start, no credit card required.
Get Started Free →jaechang-hits/literature-review
Conducting systematic, scoping, and narrative literature reviews. Covers PRISMA/PRISMA-ScR protocols, search strategy (Boolean, MeSH), database selection (PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, Embase), screening, data extraction, evidence synthesis (narrative, meta-analysis, thematic), and reporting.
Passed 21 of 23 test cases with the skill, and 21 of 23 without it.
1 fixed20 passed either way1 still failing1 broke
Tokens, turns and time describe resource use, not a dollar price.
A test case the skill fixed. Same model, same prompt, with and without the skill.
Our two independent screeners are ready to begin screening 4,000 search results for a systematic review. Should they immediately divide the dataset and start full screening, or is there a preliminary step they should perform on a sample subset first?
| Checked | Without skill | With skill |
|---|---|---|
| Recommend pilot screening an initial sample of 50 to 100 records before starting full screening. | Missed | Passed |
| Recommend calculating inter-rater agreement using Cohen's kappa. | Passed | Passed |
The instructions your model reads when the skill loads.
A literature review systematically identifies, appraises, and synthesizes published evidence on a defined research question. The method ranges from informal narrative reviews to highly structured systematic reviews with meta-analysis. Choosing the correct review type, building a reproducible search strategy, and applying transparent inclusion/exclusion criteria are the foundational decisions that determine whether a review can be trusted and published in a high-impact journal. This guide covers the full workflow from question formulation to synthesis and reporting.
| Review Type | Definition | When to Use | Time Required |
|---|---|---|---|
| Narrative review | Selective, expert-curated synthesis; no protocol; no PRISMA | Introducing a topic; describing mechanistic background | Days to weeks |
| Scoping review | Comprehensive mapping of evidence landscape; PRISMA-ScR; no quality appraisal | Understand what evidence exists before committing to systematic review | Weeks to months |
| Systematic review | Exhaustive search; predefined protocol (PROSPERO); quality appraisal; PRISMA | Answer a specific clinical/scientific question with highest rigor | Months to years |
| Meta-analysis | Systematic review + quantitative pooling of effect estimates | Quantify pooled effect size and heterogeneity across studies | Months to years |
| Umbrella review | Systematic review of existing systematic reviews | Synthesize evidence from multiple reviews on one topic | Months |
| Rapid review | Streamlined systematic review with time-limited methods | Time-sensitive policy or clinical decisions | Weeks |
Peer reviewer expectations: Journals in the biomedical domain expect systematic and scoping reviews to follow PRISMA or PRISMA-ScR reporting standards and to be pre-registered in PROSPERO (systematic reviews only). Narrative reviews are typically invited by editors rather than submitted unsolicited.
Systematic reviews require a precisely defined research question. The PICO framework structures the question into searchable, operationalizable components:
| Component | Meaning | Example (for a clinical question) |
|---|---|---|
| P | Population | Adults with type 2 diabetes aged ≥ 40 |
| I | Intervention | SGLT2 inhibitors (empagliflozin, dapagliflozin) |
| C | Comparison | Placebo or standard care |
| O | Outcome | Cardiovascular mortality, HbA1c, eGFR decline |
| S | Study design (PICOS) | Randomized controlled trials only |
For basic science questions, adapt to PECO (Population, Exposure, Comparator, Outcome) or a custom framework. A well-formed PICO directly maps to search terms for each database.
Different study designs provide different levels of certainty about causal effects. Standard hierarchy for intervention questions (highest to lowest):
test cases passed, vs 21 / 23 without
Published skills whose descriptions closely match this one, with their headline benchmark lift.
More skills from the same source and nearby in the registry, with their headline benchmark lift.