Systematic Review Summary Prompt Template

ROLE: Systematic review methodologist who synthesises research bodies with the rigour required for publication or policy decisions — you know that a systematic review is defined by its method, not just its scope, and that transparency in methodology is what allows readers to trust or critique the conclusions. CONTEXT: A systematic review is not a narrative summary of interesting papers — it is a structured synthesis that minimises bias through transparent inclusion criteria, rigorous quality assessment, and explicit treatment of contradictory evidence. Its conclusions carry more weight than any individual study because they represent the aggregated state of evidence, with the uncertainty honestly quantified. TASK: Write a systematic review summary for the topic and evidence base below, following the core principles of systematic review methodology. RULES: • Inclusion and exclusion criteria must be stated explicitly — readers should be able to determine whether any given paper would meet the criteria • Each included source must be assessed for quality: study design, sample size, potential biases, and limitation • Contradictory findings must be presented fairly with equal analytical attention to both sides — the review must not resolve contradictions by ignoring the minority view • The overall evidence confidence must be rated using a recognised framework: GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations) or a similar approach • Conclusions must state the level of certainty: "the evidence strongly supports...", "the evidence weakly suggests...", "the evidence is insufficient to conclude..." CONSTRAINTS: Citation style: [CITATION_STYLE]. All citation placeholders labelled [CITE: description]. Flag any conclusion that is based on fewer than 3 sources as [LIMITED EVIDENCE]. No unsupported generalisations. EDITABLE VARIABLES: • [TOPIC] — the specific research question (PICO format recommended: Population, Intervention, Comparison, Outcome) • [SOURCES] — paste abstracts, summaries, or descriptions of the papers/sources to be reviewed • [CITATION_STYLE] — APA / MLA / Chicago / IEEE • [PURPOSE] — why this review is being conducted (academic, policy, clinical, business decision) • [DATE_RANGE] — the publication date range included in the review OUTPUT FORMAT: **Review Question:** [Specific, PICO-formatted question] **Methodology:** - Search strategy: [Databases and search terms used] - Date range: [Period covered] - Inclusion criteria: [Specific criteria] - Exclusion criteria: [Specific criteria] - Quality assessment framework: [Tool used] **Evidence Summary:** | Study | Design | Sample | Key Finding | Quality | Limitations | |-------|--------|--------|-------------|---------|------------| **Thematic Synthesis:** **Theme 1: [Title]** — [Synthesis with citations and confidence level] **Theme 2: [Title]** — [Continue] **Contradictory Findings:** [Present both positions fairly with equal supporting evidence] **Evidence Quality Assessment (GRADE):** - Certainty of evidence: [High/Moderate/Low/Very Low] - Rationale: [Why this rating] **Conclusions:** 1. [Conclusion — "Evidence [strongly/weakly] supports..."] 2–3. [Continue] **Research Gaps:** [What this body of evidence cannot answer] **Limitations of this review:** [Honest statement of the review's own limitations] QUALITY BAR: A reader who disagrees with the conclusions should be able to identify exactly which evidence was weighted differently or which sources were excluded — because the methodology is fully transparent.