literature-review

What this skill does

# Literature Review

Comprehensive, systematic literature reviews following rigorous academic methodology across biomedical and scientific domains.

## Triggers

- User asks for a literature review on a topic
- User needs evidence synthesis across multiple studies
- User wants to understand the current state of research
- User is preparing background for a newsletter or editorial
- User needs to identify research gaps

## Workflow Phases

### 1. Planning & Scoping

**Define Research Question** using PICO framework:
- **P**opulation: Who is being studied?
- **I**ntervention: What treatment/exposure?
- **C**omparison: Against what?
- **O**utcome: What results matter?

**Establish Scope**:
- Date range (typically 5-10 years for currency)
- Study types to include (RCTs, observational, reviews)
- Inclusion/exclusion criteria
- Languages accepted

### 2. Systematic Search

**Required Databases** (minimum 3):
| Database | Best For |
|----------|----------|
| PubMed | Biomedical, clinical |
| Cochrane Library | Systematic reviews |
| EMBASE | Pharmacology, European |
| Google Scholar | Gray literature, coverage |
| bioRxiv/medRxiv | Preprints, cutting edge |

**Search Strategy Elements**:
- MeSH/controlled vocabulary terms
- Free-text synonyms
- Boolean operators
- Field restrictions as needed

### 3. Screening & Selection

1. **Deduplication** - Remove duplicate records
2. **Title screening** - Exclude obviously irrelevant
3. **Abstract review** - Apply inclusion criteria
4. **Full-text evaluation** - Final eligibility check
5. **Document exclusion reasons** at each stage

### 4. Data Extraction

Extract from each included study:
- Citation information
- Study design and setting
- Sample size and characteristics
- Key findings and effect sizes
- Funding sources
- Limitations noted by authors

### 5. Quality Assessment

| Study Type | Assessment Tool |
|------------|-----------------|
| RCTs | Cochrane Risk of Bias (RoB 2) |
| Observational | Newcastle-Ottawa Scale |
| Systematic reviews | AMSTAR 2 |
| Diagnostic | QUADAS-2 |

### 6. Synthesis

**Critical**: Organize thematically, NOT study-by-study.

Bad: "Smith 2020 found X. Jones 2021 found Y. Brown 2022 found Z."

Good: "The relationship between SGLT2 inhibitors and heart failure outcomes has been consistently demonstrated across multiple trials (Smith 2020, Jones 2021, Brown 2022), with effect sizes ranging from..."

**Identify**:
- Areas of consensus
- Contradictory findings and potential explanations
- Research gaps
- Methodological trends

### 7. Citation Verification

Before finalizing:
- Validate all DOIs against CrossRef
- Verify author names and dates
- Confirm journal names
- Use citation-management skill for formatting

## Output Formats

### For Newsletter Background
- Concise synthesis (500-1000 words)
- Key statistics highlighted
- Top 5-10 most relevant citations
- Clear clinical implications

### For Editorial Foundation
- Comprehensive synthesis (1500-2500 words)
- Organized by theme/controversy
- Evidence quality assessment
- Explicit gaps identification

### For Academic Manuscript
- Full systematic review format
- PRISMA flow diagram
- Risk of bias tables
- Forest plots if meta-analysis

## Best Practices

1. **Document everything** - Search strategies, screening decisions, extraction forms
2. **Search multiple databases** - Minimum 3 for comprehensive coverage
3. **Include preprints** - For most current findings
4. **Assess study quality** - Don't treat all evidence equally
5. **Synthesize thematically** - Never list studies sequentially
6. **Acknowledge limitations** - Search constraints, publication bias
7. **Verify every citation** - Accuracy is non-negotiable