Research Medical Evidence

Research Medical Evidence

Perform reproducible health-science research and publication support without confusing search databases, indexes, repositories, registries, journal platforms, or submission systems.

Route the request

Choose one or more tracks:

1. Evidence answer — answer a clinical, biomedical, safety, prognosis, diagnosis, or intervention question.
2. Literature search — design and execute a rapid, structured, scoping, or systematic search.
3. Paper appraisal — evaluate supplied or retrieved studies and explain applicability.
4. Publication support — select a journal, apply reporting standards, prepare submission materials, or respond to reviewers.

State the track and depth when it materially affects the result. Never label an informal or single-database search a systematic review.

Load only the needed references

• Read references/source-map.md before choosing databases, platforms, registries, or journal-verification tools.
• Read references/search-strategy.md when constructing, translating, documenting, or auditing a search.
• Read references/appraisal-and-synthesis.md when judging study quality, extracting results, or grading certainty.
• Read references/publication-workflow.md for journal selection, reporting guidelines, ethics, preprints, or submission.

Evidence-search workflow

1. Frame the question

• Define the decision the evidence must support.
• Convert the question to the best-fitting framework:
  • PICO for intervention or therapy;
  • PECO for exposure, association, or harm;
  • PCC for scoping questions;
  • SPIDER for qualitative or mixed-methods questions.
• Predefine population, setting, intervention or exposure, comparator, outcomes, follow-up, eligible designs, date range, and language restrictions.
• Ask only for missing details that could change safety, scope, or conclusions. Otherwise use explicit reasonable defaults.

2. Select complementary sources

• Choose sources by coverage rather than popularity.
• For detailed clinical searches, use at least two complementary databases when access permits.
• For physiotherapy or rehabilitation, normally combine PubMed/MEDLINE with PEDro, then add CINAHL, SPORTDiscus, Cochrane, or Embase as the question requires.
• For Turkish evidence, add TR Dizin, DergiPark, and YÖK Thesis Center when local publications or grey literature could matter. Do not treat these as replacements for international databases.
• Search trial and review registries when unpublished, ongoing, or selectively reported evidence could change the answer.
• Treat preprints as non-peer-reviewed and label them prominently.
• Report inaccessible subscription sources and provide database-ready queries instead of pretending they were searched.

3. Build database-native queries

• Split the question into concept blocks.
• Combine controlled vocabulary with free-text terms, spelling variants, acronyms, older terminology, drug brand/generic names, and Turkish/English variants where relevant.
• Build a broad sensitivity-first query and a narrower precision query.
• Translate syntax for each database; never paste PubMed syntax unchanged into every platform.
• Avoid NOT and restrictive filters unless clearly justified.
• Validate the strategy against known sentinel papers when available; revise if the query misses them.

4. Retrieve and document

• Search live sources whenever current or high-stakes accuracy matters.
• Open the record and, when necessary, the full text; do not rely on search snippets.
• Record database/platform, exact query, search date, filters, result count, and access limitations.
• Deduplicate records and perform backward citation, forward citation, similar-article, and related-review chasing when depth warrants it.
• Check publication type, peer-review status, protocol or registry record, corrections, expressions of concern, retractions, and duplicate publications.
• Prefer primary studies for claims about effects; use reviews and guidelines to map the field and locate primary evidence.

5. Appraise and synthesize

• Match the appraisal method to the study design; do not use a reporting checklist as a risk-of-bias tool.
• Extract population, sample, intervention/exposure, comparator, outcomes, follow-up, effect estimates, confidence intervals, attrition, adverse events, and funding/conflicts.
• Weigh risk of bias, consistency, precision, directness, and publication bias. Do not count studies as votes.
• Separate human clinical evidence from animal, in-vitro, mechanistic, surrogate, and indirect evidence.
• Distinguish association from causation and statistical significance from clinical importance.
• Say no direct evidence found when appropriate; do not convert it into evidence of no effect.

6. Deliver a traceable result

Lead with the answer and certainty. Then provide, as appropriate:

1. scope and last-search date;
2. databases actually searched and important sources not accessed;
3. exact search strings or a concise reproducible search log;
4. evidence table with design, sample, key result, limitations, and relevance;
5. synthesis with contradictions and applicability;
6. certainty rating and what could change the conclusion;
7. exact citations with DOI, PMID, registry ID, or stable URL when available.

Use the user's language. Keep routine answers concise; expose the full search record for systematic, academic, or explicitly detailed requests.

Publication-support workflow

• Identify manuscript type, target readers, language, novelty, ethics approval, registration, data availability, and publication constraints.
• Select the current reporting guideline through EQUATOR and the journal's author instructions.
• Shortlist journals by scope fit first; then verify indexing, active coverage years, fees, access model, licensing, archiving, review process, and stated timelines using official sources.
• Treat DergiPark, OJS, ScholarOne, and Editorial Manager as infrastructure or workflow systems, not quality marks.
• Verify claims such as MEDLINE, Scopus, Web of Science, TR Dizin, quartile, or impact factor in the corresponding official source. Do not trust a journal logo alone.
• Screen for deceptive or predatory practices using the checks in the publication reference.
• Prepare only the materials requested: manuscript structure, abstract, cover letter, reporting checklist, title page, author contributions, conflicts, funding, ethics, consent, data statement, figures, supplements, or reviewer response.
• Never upload, submit, withdraw, accept fees, sign licenses, or contact a journal without explicit user authorization.

Non-negotiable quality gates

• Never fabricate citations, PMIDs, DOIs, registry IDs, journal metrics, indexing status, or full-text access.
• Never claim a database was searched when only a general web result or another index was searched.
• Cite each consequential claim beside the evidence that supports it.
• Prefer official database records, publisher pages, registries, guidelines, and primary papers.
• Flag abstract-only conclusions, inaccessible full text, translation uncertainty, conflicts of interest, and post-publication concerns.
• Recheck dates, units, sample sizes, denominators, effect directions, and citation links before delivery.
• Resolve every decisive DOI, PMID, registry ID, title, author, publication year, correction, and retraction status against an authoritative record when available; a plausible-looking citation is not evidence.
• Use $evidence-integrity-guard for the final claim/source/citation audit when available, without treating it as a substitute for design-specific appraisal.
• For patient-specific decisions, state the evidence boundary and relevant safety escalation without replacing clinical evaluation.