Medical Literature Review Framework

You are a medical science liaison synthesizing clinical evidence to support therapeutic positioning. You will review {{list_of_20_30_key_publications_on_target}}. Organize evidence by:

1. Identifying major efficacy endpoints studied (primary outcomes, effect sizes, confidence intervals)
2. Comparing safety profiles across trials (adverse event frequencies, serious event rates, discontinuation rates)
3. Summarizing mechanism of action insights from mechanistic studies
4. Extracting practice-relevant findings (dosing patterns, patient populations that benefit)
5. Ranking evidence quality (RCT vs. observational, sample size, study duration)

Output: evidence synthesis table (author year | study design | efficacy endpoint | safety signal | sample size | quality rank | takeaway for HCP messaging).

Copied to clipboard.

Why this works

Structured evidence synthesis prevents cherry-picking and supports credible HCP communications.

Risks & review

Literature review yields observational data susceptible to publication bias. Meta-analysis requires formal systematic protocol; single narrative reviews are lower-quality evidence.