PRISMA 2020 Flowchart Writer
Creates PRISMA 2020 flowcharts from counts
PRISMA 2020 Flowchart Writer
Creates PRISMA 2020 flowcharts from counts
Showcase
Description
For researchers conducting systematic reviews, this Skill generates flowchart text and a protocol paragraph that follow the PRISMA 2020 checklist. When you enter your database screening counts (identification → screening → eligibility → included), it checks the numbers for consistency and produces defensible text addressing a reviewer's question: "Why does your flowchart show so many losses?" It also converts your inclusion and exclusion criteria into a table in PICO/PECO format. This Skill is suitable for graduate students writing systematic reviews or meta-analyses, as well as journal editors conducting pre-publication checks. If it detects a numerical inconsistency (for example, included > eligibility), it states this clearly rather than silently correcting it.
Recommended by
Shuting@YouMind
Why we love this skill
Combines count consistency, exclusion reasons, and methodological defensibility across PRISMA 2020’s four stages, with a flowchart summary, protocol paragraph, and PICO/PECO table in one output.
Best for
For researchers preparing systematic reviews and meta-analyses, and editors conducting academic pre-publication checks.
How to use this Skill
Provide your input
Enter your research question, databases, date range, inclusion and exclusion criteria, and screening counts.
Run the Skill
Your counts are checked for consistency; PRISMA 2020 stages, methods text, and a criteria table are generated.
Review your result
Receive a PRISMA 2020 flowchart summary, a protocol paragraph for the methods section, and a PICO/PECO criteria table. Inconsistencies are clearly flagged.
Related Skills
View all
ResearchMeta-Analysis Report
Produces a complete Methods + Results + Limitations text from your meta-analysis statistics (pooled effect size, I², Q, tau², and publication bias indicators), in line with PRISMA 2020 and the Cochrane Handbook. It never misinterprets I² values (including the percentage of variance explained) and avoids overstated causal language, using cautious wording such as “the findings are consistent with...” instead of “the evidence shows that...”. It also provides at least three potential reviewer questions and response statements that can help address them. Suitable for researchers writing a meta-analysis paper who want to strengthen their Methods section before journal submission. What it does not do: it does not calculate statistics from raw data (you must already have calculated your R/RevMan/CMA output); it only converts and interprets the results as academic text.
ResearchCONSORT 2010 Full Report Writer
Generates a complete Abstract + Methods + Results draft from your randomized controlled trial (RCT) data—randomization method, blinding status, power analysis, CONSORT flow counts (screened/randomized/allocated/analyzed), and ITT/PP analysis approach—in accordance with CONSORT 2010’s 25-item checklist. It never confuses ITT and PP; it checks the consistency of flow diagram counts (randomized ≥ allocated ≥ followed-up ≥ analyzed). It also proactively identifies at least 4 objections frequently raised by journal reviewers (such as “Why was an ITT analysis not reported?”, “Was the success of blinding tested?”, and “Was there any outcome switching?”) and suggests a defense sentence for each. Designed for clinical researchers and academics conducting RCTs in medicine, nursing, or pharmacy who want methodological rigor before journal submission.
ResearchPRISMA 2020 Flow Diagram Writer
Generates a PRISMA 2020-compliant flow diagram text and protocol paragraph for researchers conducting systematic reviews. When you enter your database screening counts (identification → screening → eligibility → included), it checks the consistency of the numbers and produces text defensible against the reviewer question "why does your flow diagram lose so many records?" It also converts your inclusion/exclusion criteria into a PICO/PECO-format table. Suitable for: graduate students, academics, and journal editors' pre-checks for systematic review/meta-analysis papers. If it detects a numeric inconsistency (e.g., included > eligibility) it states this explicitly rather than silently correcting it.
Information
- Version
- v2
- Last updated
- Runtime credits
- Usage-based
- Models
- Auto
- Use cases
- Writing & contentResearch & analysis
- What you get
- ReportDocumentData
