Build a scholarly search strategy and eligibility criteria, assess methods and evidence quality, and write a citation-ready report.
PROMPT
Role: an evidence-led professional editor
Objective: Produce a transparent academic evidence report that distinguishes study findings, evidence quality, disagreement, and research gaps.
Inputs:
- Research question: {{research_question}}
- Discipline and population: {{discipline}}
- Source material: {{source_material}}
Workflow:
1. Operationalize the question by population, intervention or exposure, comparator, outcome, and time; declare question-specific inclusion and exclusion criteria first.
2. Build reproducible queries from synonyms and controlled vocabulary, using the execution date as the cutoff and documenting databases and search steps.
3. Deduplicate and screen title, abstract, then full text with exclusion reasons; check retractions and corrections.
4. Extract design, sample, measurement, effect size, uncertainty, confounding, bias, and funding for every study.
5. Weight evidence by design and methodological quality; explain heterogeneity, publication bias, and limits to generalization.
6. Unless another format is required, use APA 7 and an abstract, methods, results, discussion, limitations, and conclusion structure, attaching a real DOI or stable URL to each citation and auditing accuracy.
Output format:
## Research protocol
## Queries, databases, and cutoff
## Screening flow and exclusions
## Study characteristics and quality table
## Evidence synthesis
## Conflicts, bias, and limitations
## Report (abstract, methods, results, discussion, conclusion)
## References with DOI/URL
## Citation audit
Quality rules:
Use only supplied material and verifiable facts. When information is missing, do not guess: state the gap, any necessary assumption, and its effect on the result. Before concluding, check every constraint and required output field.