Meta Analysis Topic Finder

Topic selection assessment and topic-report generation for meta-analyses (systematic reviews). Triggered when: you want to do a meta-analysis but don't know what topic to pick; you have a research direction and want to assess whether it is suitable for a meta-analysis; you want to evaluate feasibility / novelty / clinical value of a candidate topic; you want to generate a structured topic report; you need PICO decomposition; you need to choose the meta-analysis type; you want PRISMA 2020 and AMSTAR-2 pre-checks; you need guidance on deduplication searches; you are preparing for PROSPERO registration. Covers intervention / exposure / diagnostic / prognostic meta-analysis topic selection in medicine, epidemiology, pharmacy, nursing, public health, psychology, education, and related fields. Keywords: meta-analysis topic selection, systematic review question, PICO, PRISMA 2020, AMSTAR-2, PROSPERO registration, deduplication search, network meta-analysis topic, IPD meta-analysis topic, dose-response meta-analysis topic.

meta-analysis-topic-selector

Overview

This Skill turns "meta-analysis topic selection" from an intuition-driven judgment into an auditable, output-driven standardized workflow. It covers the full pipeline from a vague research interest to a PROSPERO-ready topic report, with built-in:

• Dual-path entry: rapid assessment (≤30 min for a feasibility verdict) / full assessment (5 stages + PROSPERO pre-registration audit)
• Four-dimension topic assessment model (clinical value / methodological feasibility / data availability / novelty, 0–20 quantified)
• Cross-check rules (conservative style: auto-detect internal contradictions and force re-review)
• PICO/PECO operational decomposition spec (every qualifier must be expressible in a search string)
• Three-layer deduplication search (PROSPERO + Cochrane Library + PubMed, with non-English database extension and near-duplicate topic judgment)
• PRISMA 2020 and AMSTAR-2 key-item compliance preview (identify methodological risks at topic-selection stage)
• Meta-analysis type decision tree (traditional pairwise / NMA / IPD / dose-response / DTA / proportion / genetic association / multivariate)
• Standardized topic-report generation (11-section Markdown / HTML output)
• PROSPERO registration form field mapping (report fields map directly to the online form)

When to Use

Triggered when:

1. The user says "I want to do a meta-analysis but don't have a topic" or "Can this direction be done as a meta-analysis?"
2. The user provides a research direction and wants to assess whether it is suitable for a meta-analysis
3. The user already has a concrete PICO and wants deduplication search + feasibility preview
4. The user asks for a structured meta-analysis topic report
5. The user is doing a methodological pre-audit before PROSPERO registration
6. The user already has a topic but a reviewer rejected it as "duplicate" or "no increment" and wants to re-assess

Not applicable when:

• The meta-analysis has already entered data extraction or synthesis (use an execution skill instead)
• Pure literature searching (use a search skill instead)
• Narrative review topic selection (different methodology; this Skill does not apply)
• Critical appraisal of a single RCT (not in scope of meta-analysis)

Path Selection: Rapid vs Full Assessment

Before entering the workflow, decide which path to take:

User situation	Path	Output
"Can this be done as a meta?" "Tell me in 5 min"	Rapid assessment	1-page verdict card (rough 4-dim score + recommendation + key risks)
"Give me a topic report" "Pre-PROSPERO audit"	Full assessment	11-section standardized report (dedup search + PRISMA/AMSTAR-2 pre-check)
"I was rejected as duplicate"	Dedup re-audit	Innovation-increment review report

Rapid assessment path (compact)

Execute only Stage 1 → Stage 2 (compact) → Stage 3 (rough scoring). No dedup search is performed, but the user must be warned that "rapid-assessment conclusions must be confirmed by dedup search in the full-assessment stage". Output a 1-page verdict card:

text

# Meta topic verdict card
- Research question: [one sentence]
- PICO (compact): P / I / C / O, one line each
- Meta type: [type] + one-sentence rationale
- Four-dim rough score: Clinical [?] / Methodology [?] / Data [?] / Novelty [?(tentative)] / Total [?/20]
- Recommendation: [proceed / hold / not recommended]
- Key risks: [1-2 items]
- Next step: [enter full assessment / re-pick topic / abandon]
- ⚠️ Rapid assessment did not perform a dedup search; the conclusion must be confirmed in the full-assessment stage

The "novelty" dimension in rapid assessment can only be a tentative score (anchor 3); it must be confirmed or revised after the three-layer dedup search in the full-assessment stage.

Full assessment path

Execute the 5-stage workflow below in order.

Workflow — Meta-analysis topic selection 5-stage workflow

Execute the following 5 stages in order. Each stage has an explicit decision gate: if the previous stage fails its threshold, do not enter the next stage; the blocker must be resolved first.

Stage 1: Research-interest clarification

Goal: Narrow the user's vague direction into an assessable research question.

Execution points:

• Ask about the user's core research interest (disease, intervention/exposure, population, preferred study type)
• Ask about the meta-goal (degree thesis / journal publication / grant application / review-style learning); different goals set different rigor bars
• Ask about the user's methodological capability boundary (can they do NMA / IPD / Bayesian methods?)
• Ask about resource constraints (number of collaborators, accessible databases, time budget)

Decision gate 1: Output 1–3 candidate research directions, each with a one-sentence research question statement.

• 0 candidates (interest too vague) → ask one more round; if still no direction, suggest a narrative review as practice first
• ≥4 candidates → ask the user to pick 3 by priority to avoid evaluation sprawl
• Candidates highly overlapping (same intervention, different doses) → merge into 1 direction + internal subgroups

Output: 1–3 candidate research directions.

Stage 2: PICO/PECO operational decomposition

Goal: Decompose the research direction into a "protocol-ready" PICO/PECO structure.

Load reference: references/pico-decomposition-guide.md

Execution points:

• Decompose along P / I (or E) / C / O
• Every qualifier on P must be expressible in a search string (not expressible → not operational enough)
• I/E must specify dose, duration, route, follow-up window
• Complex interventions (combination / titration / sequential / planned switch) → follow Section 6 "Complex intervention decomposition spec" of pico-decomposition-guide.md
• C and I must be matched in granularity
• O must specify ≥1–2 primary outcomes (one time-to-event outcome recommended); each outcome must specify measurement tool, timepoint, effect-measure type
• After completion, run the "PICO decomposition quality self-check list" of pico-decomposition-guide.md item by item
• Output a standard research-question statement: In [P], does [I] compared with [C] improve [O]?

Decision gate 2: All items on the self-check list pass.

• Any item fails → return to revise PICO; do not enter Stage 3
• If P cannot be operationalized (e.g., "immunotherapy patients" cannot be staged) → return to Stage 1 to re-narrow

Output: Full PICO/PECO decomposition + research-question statement + self-check pass confirmation.

Stage 3: Four-dimension assessment + Meta-type selection

Goal: Quantify topic feasibility and decide the appropriate meta-analysis type.

Load references:

• references/topic-selection-framework.md (core methodology)
• references/novelty-assessment-guide.md (novelty judgment, paired with Stage 4 dedup results)

Execution points:

3.1 Four-dimension assessment

Score each dimension 0–5 per the "four-dimension topic assessment model" of topic-selection-framework.md. Every score must state a reason tied to an anchor ("should be 4" is not acceptable; you must write "matches anchor 4: resolves a common clinical dilemma with clear decision impact").

Dimensions:

• Clinical value
• Methodological feasibility
• Data availability
• Novelty

3.2 Cross-check rules (conservative style, enforced)

After scoring, run the following 6 cross-check rules. Triggering any rule → forced re-review; re-score and state the re-review reason:

Rule	Trigger	Action
R1 All-5	All four dimensions scored 5	Forced re-review — usually means scoring was too lenient; at least one dimension should be lowered. Re-check against anchors
R2 High-clinical AND high-novelty without dedup	Clinical ≥4 AND Novelty ≥4 AND no dedup search done yet	Lower novelty to 3 (tentative); cannot raise until Stage 4 dedup confirms
R3 Data vs feasibility contradiction	Data availability ≥4 but Methodological feasibility ≤2	Re-review — abundant data but infeasible methodology usually means a key blocker was missed
R4 Clinical vs data contradiction	Clinical ≥4 but Data ≤2	Re-review — clinically important but sparse data; consider widening/narrowing PICO
R5 Any dimension ≤2	Any dimension ≤2	Even if total ≥14, hold; the weak dimension must be addressed first
R6 Reason not anchored	Any dimension's reason does not reference an anchor	Return and rewrite the reason

Cross-check pass criterion: None of the 6 rules trigger, or triggered rules have been re-reviewed with a documented action.

3.3 Total-score decision rules

• Total ≥17 and cross-check passes → strongly recommend proceeding
• Total ≥14, no dimension ≤2, cross-check passes → recommend proceeding
• Total ≥10 → hold; revise PICO or methodology
• Total <10 → not recommended
• Any dimension ≤2 → veto; even total ≥17 is held (take the stricter of the two)

3.4 Meta-analysis type selection

Choose per the "Meta-analysis type decision tree" of topic-selection-framework.md:

• Single intervention vs comparator, simple evidence network → traditional pairwise
• Multi-intervention comparison, ranking needed → Network meta-analysis (NMA)
• Individual patient data needed → IPD meta-analysis
• Exposure/dose vs outcome continuous relationship → Dose-response meta-analysis
• Diagnostic test accuracy → DTA meta-analysis (HSROC or Bivariate)
• Proportion-type outcome → Proportion meta-analysis
• Genetic polymorphism → Genetic association meta-analysis
• Multi-outcome benefit-risk → Multivariate meta-analysis

Decision gate 3: Four-dim scoring passes cross-check + total meets bar + meta type selected.

• Total <10 or any dimension ≤2 → hold; return to Stage 2 to revise PICO or abandon
• Cross-check not passed → must re-review first; do not enter Stage 4

Output: Four-dim score table (with anchored reasons) + cross-check result + meta type + type rationale.

Stage 4: Deduplication search + PRISMA/AMSTAR-2 pre-check

Goal: Identify prior same-topic work, assess compliance feasibility, decide whether to proceed.

Load references:

• references/novelty-assessment-guide.md (dedup flow + near-duplicate judgment)
• references/prisma-2020-checklist.md (PRISMA 2020 pre-check)
• references/amstar-2-checklist.md (AMSTAR-2 self-check)

4.1 Three-layer deduplication search

Execute per "three-layer dedup search flow" of novelty-assessment-guide.md:

1. PROSPERO search (https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/)

   • Query: core intervention + disease (no need to add "meta-analysis")
   • Record hits and status (Ongoing / Completed / Stopped)

2. Cochrane Library search (CDSR + CENTRAL)

   • Query: core terms
   • Record hits and publication year

3. PubMed published meta-analysis search

   • Query: core terms + (filter: Systematic Review OR Meta-Analysis)
   • Limit to the last 5 years
   • Record hits and key papers

4. Non-English database extension search (when the topic involves non-English literature or populations)

   • CNKI / Wanfang / VIP / SinoMed: core intervention terms (in local language) + disease terms + "meta-analysis" or "systematic review" (in local language)
   • Record hits and key non-English meta-analyses

Note: This Skill does not directly query online databases. Use WebFetch to assist with PROSPERO and PubMed; or ask the user to run searches manually and back-fill results. Cochrane Library usually requires a subscription; recommend the user search within their institution.

4.2 Exact-duplicate and near-duplicate judgment

Exact duplicate (all four PICO elements identical) → handle per the judgment matrix in novelty-assessment-guide.md.

Near duplicate (some PICO elements change) → handle per the "near-duplicate judgment matrix" in novelty-assessment-guide.md:

Near-duplicate type	Counts as duplicate?	Action
Switch within-class intervention (e.g., PD-1 → PD-L1)	Usually no	Proceed, but justify the within-class substitution clinically
Switch dose/duration	Usually no	Proceed, but justify the clinical meaning of the dose difference
Switch primary outcome (OS → PFS)	Usually no	Proceed, but justify the clinical value of the new outcome
Switch subgroup population	Usually no	Proceed, but justify the independent clinical meaning of the subgroup
Only switch database scope (e.g., add CNKI)	Usually yes	❌ Not a sufficient increment; must stack other increments
Only switch time window (1–2 yr later)	Borderline	Must stack a new-study increment

4.3 Innovation judgment

Per the "evidence-increment assessment" of novelty-assessment-guide.md:

• List all prior exact- and near-duplicate works
• Assess increment type (new studies / new subgroup / new outcome / new methodology / new scope / new question)
• Apply the "increment sufficiency matrix" to decide sufficiency
• Give a recommendation (proceed / hold / abandon)

Back-fill the Stage-3 novelty score: if the dedup result disagrees with the Stage-3 tentative score, you must update the four-dim score and re-run the cross-check rules.

4.4 PRISMA 2020 and AMSTAR-2 pre-check

Per prisma-2020-checklist.md, preview compliance for 11 key items (✅ / ⚠️ / ❌). Item numbers follow PRISMA 2020 original (Page MJ et al., BMJ 2021;372:n71):

• #1 Title, #4 Objectives (PICO), #5 Eligibility, #6 Information sources, #7 Search strategy, #8 Selection process, #10 Data items, #11 RoB, #12 Effect measures, #13 Synthesis, #13c Heterogeneity, #16 Study selection (flow diagram), Equity (PROGRESS-Plus, PRISMA-Equity extension)

Note on rendering: The report generator script renders these as PASS / WARN / FAIL (text tokens) for portability. ✅→PASS, ⚠️→WARN, ❌→FAIL. Risk level renders as LOW / MEDIUM / HIGH.

Per amstar-2-checklist.md, self-assess key items and avoid 7 critical weaknesses (AMSTAR-2 items 2, 4, 7, 9, 11, 13, 15 per Shea BJ et al., BMJ 2017;358:j4008).

Overall compliance risk:

• 🟢 Low: all ✅ → proceed; recommend PROSPERO registration
• 🟡 Medium: 1–2 ⚠️, no ❌ → proceed; shore up in the protocol
• 🔴 High: ≥3 ⚠️ or any ❌ → hold; re-assess

Decision gate 4: dedup + innovation + compliance all pass.

• Innovation "abandon" → terminate; recommend a new topic
• Innovation "hold" → return to Stage 2 to adjust PICO (e.g., new subgroup, new outcome) and re-run dedup
• Compliance 🔴 → pause; resolve the compliance blocker first (e.g., no second reviewer for screening)

Output: dedup report + near-duplicate judgment + innovation judgment + PRISMA/AMSTAR-2 preview table + overall compliance risk + (if needed) Stage-3 score back-fill.

Stage 5: Topic-report generation

Goal: Integrate all Stage 1–4 outputs into a standardized topic report.

Two execution modes:

Mode A: Script generation (recommended; most complete structure)

1. Assemble structured data per the schema in scripts/generate_topic_report.example.json
2. Call scripts/generate_topic_report.py:

   bash

   # Markdown output (default)
   python scripts/generate_topic_report.py input.json output.md
   
   # HTML output (auto-detected by extension, or explicit --format)
   python scripts/generate_topic_report.py input.json output.html
   python scripts/generate_topic_report.py input.json output.md --format html
   

3. The script auto-generates an 11-section standardized report and emits WARNINGs for missing fields

Script dependency: Python 3.8+ standard library only.

Mode B: Manual template fill

Load assets/topic_report_template.md and fill by hand or have WorkBuddy populate it.

Required 11 sections

Regardless of mode, the final report must contain:

1. Background and rationale
2. PICO/PECO decomposition
3. Meta-analysis type and rationale
4. Four-dimension assessment (with scores, total, and cross-check result)
5. Dedup search report (PROSPERO + Cochrane + PubMed + non-English DB + near-duplicate + innovation judgment)
6. Pre-search strategy and estimated included studies
7. PRISMA 2020 key-item compliance preview
8. Primary outcomes and effect measures
9. Prespecified subgroup and sensitivity analyses
10. Potential risks and mitigations
11. Recommended next steps

Output: Full Markdown / HTML topic report (recommend saving to the working directory as <topic-slug>-topic-report.md).

PROSPERO registration field mapping

After the report is generated, if the user plans to register on PROSPERO, load assets/prospero-registration-mapping.md to map report fields directly to the PROSPERO online form to avoid omissions.

Resources

references/

Loaded by WorkBuddy on demand at each stage:

• topic-selection-framework.md — four-dim assessment model, meta-type decision tree, PICO decomposition points, PRISMA/AMSTAR-2 preview guidance, topic output standard (core doc)
• pico-decomposition-guide.md — PICO/PECO operational decomposition spec, quality self-check list, common decomposition errors, complex-intervention decomposition spec
• prisma-2020-checklist.md — PRISMA 2020 key items (topic-stage preview), #8 data-item and #10 effect-measure examples, risk-level decision, PROSPERO registration advice
• amstar-2-checklist.md — AMSTAR-2 key-item self-check, critical-weakness list with avoidance actions, relationship with PRISMA
• novelty-assessment-guide.md — three-layer dedup search flow, non-English DB extension, near-duplicate judgment matrix, evidence-increment assessment, increment sufficiency matrix, dedup report template

Loading strategy:

• Stage 2 loads pico-decomposition-guide.md
• Stage 3 loads topic-selection-framework.md (novelty is tentative; no need to load novelty-assessment-guide yet)
• Stage 4 loads novelty-assessment-guide.md, prisma-2020-checklist.md, amstar-2-checklist.md
• After Stage 5 (if registering PROSPERO) load assets/prospero-registration-mapping.md

scripts/

• generate_topic_report.py — topic-report generator. Input JSON, output standardized Markdown or HTML report (11 sections). Python standard library only. Supports schema validation (warn mode) and missing-field warnings.
• generate_topic_report.example.json — full example of the input JSON; also serves as the schema doc.

assets/

• topic_report_template.md — Markdown template (with Mustache placeholders) for manual fill.
• prospero-registration-mapping.md — mapping table between the PROSPERO online registration form fields and this Skill's report fields, with fill tips.

Output Specification

Final deliverables:

1. Topic-report Markdown / HTML file (required): save to the working directory as <topic-slug>-topic-report.md or .html
2. Structured JSON data file (optional): retain for easy revision later
3. Conversational summary (required): a ≤200-word core conclusion including four-dim total + cross-check result, compliance risk, recommendation
4. PROSPERO field-mapping table (conditional): delivered when the recommendation is "proceed" and the user plans to register

Common Pitfalls (must avoid during execution)

1. Skipping dedup search: scoring right after the user has a PICO → you must run dedup first; otherwise the topic may overlap heavily with a recent publication
2. PICO too coarse: P = "solid tumor patients", I = "PD-1 inhibitor" → heterogeneity explosion; must operationalize to a searchable granularity
3. Complex intervention not decomposed: I = "PD-1 + targeted" without specifying the targeted agent → dose-response not comparable; must follow Section 6 of pico-decomposition-guide.md
4. Wrong meta type: multi-intervention comparison but choosing traditional pairwise → should be NMA
5. No prespecified subgroups: total pool only → heterogeneity unexplained; must prespecify ≥3 subgroup analyses
6. No prespecified heterogeneity threshold: only looking at I² post hoc → must prespecify at topic stage (e.g., I² > 50% triggers subgroup analysis)
7. Over-optimistic scoring: all dimensions 5 → must check against anchors in topic-selection-framework.md and run cross-check rules R1–R6
8. Cross-check not run: pushing forward with raw scores → must run the 6 rules first; if triggered, forced re-review
9. PROGRESS-Plus equity dimension missing: PRISMA 2020 item #16 → must consider region, ethnicity, sex, socioeconomic status
10. Recommending proceed but no PROSPERO mention: any 🟢 or 🟡 topic → "Recommended next steps" must include PROSPERO registration
11. Treating near-duplicate as exact duplicate: abandoning a topic because the PD-1 class was switched → use the near-duplicate matrix to differentiate
12. Non-English DB not searched: only PubMed/PROSPERO but not CNKI → topics involving non-English populations or publications must extend to non-English DBs
13. Rapid assessment giving a final verdict: "proceed" without dedup → rapid assessment must say "tentative; confirm in full assessment"

Reference Standards

This Skill is based on the following international standards and methodological literature:

• PRISMA 2020 — Page MJ et al., BMJ 2021;372:n71
• AMSTAR-2 — Shea BJ et al., BMJ 2017;358:j4008
• Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions (Version 6.x)
• GRADE Working Group guidance
• PROGRESS-Plus framework (equity dimensions)
• Cochrane RoB 2 / ROBINS-I / QUADAS-2 / ROBINS-E tool selection guidance

Example User Prompts

The following user inputs should trigger this Skill:

• "I want to do a meta-analysis on hepatocellular carcinoma immunotherapy but don't know what topic to pick"
• "Can PD-1 + lenvatinib be done as a meta?"
• "Tell me in 5 min whether this can be a meta" (→ triggers rapid assessment path)
• "Help me assess the feasibility and novelty of this meta topic"
• "Generate a meta-analysis topic report"
• "Is this topic duplicated with an existing meta?"
• "Does switching to PD-L1 count as a duplicate?" (→ triggers near-duplicate judgment)
• "Should I choose NMA or traditional pairwise meta?"
• "Can my topic comply with PRISMA 2020?"
• "What do I need to prepare before PROSPERO registration?"
• "My meta was rejected by reviewers as duplicate; what now?" (→ triggers dedup re-audit path)