القائمة
Synthesize medical literature on a clinical question — appraise evidence quality, summarize findings, and identify clinical implications.
التثبيت باستخدام Codex أو Claude انسخ هذا Prompt والصقه في Codex أو Claude أو مساعد آخر ليراجع صفحة Skill ويثبّتها لك.
استنادا إلى تصنيف SOC المهني
Summarize long documents, reports, papers, contracts, or transcripts into clear, actionable briefs without losing critical information.
Draft professional emails for any situation — cold outreach, follow-ups, difficult conversations, proposals, and internal communications.
Transform raw meeting notes, transcripts, or voice memos into structured summaries with decisions, action items, owners, and deadlines.
Structure compelling presentations and slide decks — from pitch decks and keynotes to board reports and training sessions.
Synthesize multiple sources — articles, papers, interviews, data — into a coherent analysis with a clear argument and cited evidence.
Write feedback on student work that is specific, actionable, and growth-oriented — for essays, projects, code, presentations, and performances.
| name | literature-review |
| description | Synthesize medical literature on a clinical question — appraise evidence quality, summarize findings, and identify clinical implications. |
| version | 1.0.0 |
| author | Gnostor Community |
| license | MIT |
| metadata | {"hermes":{"tags":["medical","evidence-based-medicine","literature","EBM","research","appraisal","healthcare"]}} |
Structured synthesis of clinical evidence on a focused question — appraised, summarized, and contextualized for practice.
Disclaimer: This skill is for clinicians, researchers, and medical learners. Output should be verified against primary sources and current guidelines before clinical application. It does not replace formal systematic review methodology.
## Evidence Summary: [Clinical Question]
### Bottom Line
[One paragraph — what the evidence supports for practice today]
### Strength of Evidence
- **High**: multiple RCTs, meta-analyses, consistent findings
- **Moderate**: limited RCTs or significant heterogeneity
- **Low**: observational data, expert consensus, indirect evidence
### Guidelines and Consensus
- [Society/body] [year]: [recommendation summary, grade]
- [Society/body] [year]: [recommendation summary, grade]
### Key Trials and Studies
1. **[Trial name / first author year]** — [design, n, primary finding]
- Strengths / limitations
- Relevance to the question
2. **[Trial]** — [...]
### Areas of Uncertainty / Active Research
[Open questions, ongoing trials, where evidence is lacking]
### Clinical Implications
[How this evidence translates to bedside decisions, including caveats]
### Sources
[Listed for verification — favor primary sources, guidelines, Cochrane]