Systematic Review Assistant

Clinical Use Cases

• Guideline development support: A clinical practice guideline committee commissioning a systematic review on the efficacy of SGLT2 inhibitors in heart failure uses the skill to develop the search strategy, screen the retrieved 3,000+ citations, and produce evidence tables with GRADE certainty ratings for each outcome
• Academic research: A resident preparing a systematic review for a thesis uses the skill to formulate the PICO question, build PubMed and Embase search strings, track the screening process with inter-rater reliability metrics, and generate the PRISMA checklist for manuscript submission
• Health technology assessment: A hospital pharmacy and therapeutics committee evaluating whether to add a new biologic to the formulary uses the skill to conduct a rapid systematic review of comparative effectiveness studies, producing a summary of findings table within days rather than months
• Research proposal development: An investigator applying for grant funding uses the skill to conduct a preliminary scoping review that identifies gaps in the existing literature, demonstrating the need for the proposed study and informing the sample size calculation based on effect sizes from prior trials

Safety & Evidence

• Safety Classification: Safe — The skill assists with research methodology and evidence synthesis. It does not generate clinical recommendations, treat patients, or replace the judgment of trained systematic reviewers. All screening decisions, quality assessments, and evidence interpretations must be verified by qualified researchers.
• Evidence Level: High — The skill's methodology adheres to established systematic review standards: PRISMA 2020 reporting guidelines, Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions, GRADE approach for certainty of evidence assessment, and validated risk of bias tools developed by international methodological experts.

Example Usage

PICO formulation and search strategy:

Develop a systematic review protocol for:
Research question: In adult patients with type 2 diabetes and chronic kidney disease,
does the addition of a GLP-1 receptor agonist to standard care, compared to standard
care alone, reduce the composite endpoint of major adverse kidney events?

PICO Framework:

Element	Definition	Search Terms
P (Population)	Adults with T2DM and CKD	"diabetes mellitus, type 2"[MeSH] OR "type 2 diabetes" OR "T2DM" AND "renal insufficiency, chronic"[MeSH] OR "chronic kidney disease" OR "CKD" OR "diabetic nephropathy"
I (Intervention)	GLP-1 receptor agonist	"glucagon-like peptide 1"[MeSH] OR "GLP-1 receptor agonist" OR semaglutide OR liraglutide OR dulaglutide OR exenatide OR lixisenatide
C (Comparison)	Standard care without GLP-1 RA	"standard of care" OR "usual care" OR placebo OR "standard treatment"
O (Outcome)	Major adverse kidney events (MAKE)	"kidney failure" OR "renal replacement therapy" OR "dialysis" OR "kidney transplantation" OR "estimated glomerular filtration rate decline" OR "eGFR" OR "MAKE"

Eligibility Criteria:

• Inclusion: RCTs and quasi-experimental studies; adults >=18 years; established T2DM and CKD (eGFR <60 mL/min/1.73m2); minimum 24-week follow-up
• Exclusion: Type 1 diabetes; ESKD on dialysis at enrollment; pediatric populations; conference abstracts without full-text; non-English publications without available translation

Databases to search: PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane CENTRAL, ClinicalTrials.gov (for unpublished trial data)

PubMed search string:

(("diabetes mellitus, type 2"[MeSH] OR "type 2 diabetes"[tiab] OR "T2DM"[tiab])
AND ("renal insufficiency, chronic"[MeSH] OR "chronic kidney disease"[tiab] OR "CKD"[tiab] OR "diabetic nephropathy"[tiab])
AND ("glucagon-like peptide 1"[MeSH] OR "GLP-1"[tiab] OR "semaglutide"[tiab] OR "liraglutide"[tiab] OR "dulaglutide"[tiab])
AND ("randomized controlled trial"[pt] OR "clinical trial"[pt]))

Technical Details

• Category: Research
• Author: OMS Contributors
• License: MIT
• Version: 1.0.0
• Specialty: Research, Epidemiology

References

• Page MJ, et al. "The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews." BMJ. 2021;372:n71.
• Higgins JPT, et al. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Version 6.4, 2023. Cochrane.
• Sterne JAC, et al. "RoB 2: a revised tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials." BMJ. 2019;366:l4898.
• Guyatt GH, et al. "GRADE: an emerging consensus on rating quality of evidence and strength of recommendations." BMJ. 2008;336:924-926.
• Stroup DF, et al. "Meta-analysis of observational studies in epidemiology (MOOSE)." JAMA. 2000;283(15):2008-2012.

This skill is part of Open Medical Skills, a curated marketplace of medical AI skills maintained by physicians for physicians and the healthcare industry.