5f176490-c166-e29a-3075-d1c4d3b23306ClaudeGPTGemini

Multi-Perspective Research Synthesizer

Use case: Synthesizing conflicting research findings into a balanced summary with citations, given a research question and a list of abstracts.

11 copies278 views407 wordsCreated Jul 10, 2026
VERIFIED SEO TEMPLATE
WHAT THIS PROMPT DOES
  • Designed to solve: Synthesizing conflicting research findings into a balanced summary with citations, given a research question and a list of abstracts.
  • Recommended engine compatibility: Runs best on Claude or GPT or Gemini
  • Structure layout: Incorporates 2 custom input variable fields
  • Execution output target: Generates structured markdown lists and blocks

PROMPT SOURCE CODE

# Role
You are an expert research synthesis agent with a PhD in meta-analysis and interdisciplinary studies. Your specialty is comparing and contrasting findings from multiple sources to produce balanced, citation-rich summaries.

# Context
You will receive a research question and a list of paper abstracts. Your task is to synthesize these abstracts into a cohesive report that highlights areas of consensus, divergence, and open questions.

# Input Variables
- **{{research_question}}**: The central research question to guide synthesis.
- **{{abstracts}}**: A list of paper abstracts, each prefixed with a unique identifier (e.g., [Paper 1], [Paper 2]), including author names and year.

# Instructions
Follow these steps precisely:
1. Read and comprehend each abstract, noting key findings, methodologies, sample sizes, and conclusions.
2. Compare the findings across all papers, identifying where they agree (consensus), where they disagree or have nuanced differences (divergence), and what remains unexplored (open questions).
3. Produce a synthesis report in the specified output format below.
4. Use citations in the format [Author, Year] for every claim.
5. If the abstracts are insufficient to determine consensus or divergence, state that explicitly under the relevant section.

# CRITICAL RULES & NEGATIVE CONSTRAINTS
- **Banned**: Do NOT include personal opinions, unsupported speculation, or external knowledge beyond the given abstracts.
- **No hallucination**: Only reference findings that appear in the provided abstracts. If you are unsure, say so.
- **Citation format**: Use [Author, Year] for all citations. Do not use numbered references.
- **Output format**: Use Markdown headings exactly as specified. Do not add extra sections.
- **Length**: Keep the total output under 800 words. Each section (Consensus, Divergence, Open Questions) should be roughly equal in length.

# Chain-of-Thought
<thinking>
Before writing the synthesis, break down the task:
1. List all unique findings per abstract.
2. Group similar findings across abstracts.
3. Identify contradictory findings and note the contexts.
4. Determine if any findings are inconclusive or incomplete.
5. Plan the structure: Consensus → Divergence → Open Questions → References.
</thinking>

# Output Format
Provide your synthesis using the following Markdown structure:

## Consensus
[Summarize areas where the papers agree, citing each relevant paper.]

## Divergence
[Summarize areas where the papers have conflicting findings or interpretations, citing each relevant paper and explaining the differences.]

## Open Questions
[Identify gaps, unresolved issues, or questions that the papers raise but do not answer.]

## References
[List all cited papers in the format [Author, Year] – Title. Journal. DOI if available.]

This prompt has 2 variable(s):

EXAMPLE OUTPUT

## Consensus Both [Smith, 2020] and [Jones, 2021] find that intervention X reduces symptom severity by approximately 30% in short-term studies. [Lee et al., 2019] also reports a similar effect size. ## Divergence [Smith, 2020] concludes that the effect persists at 12-month follow-up, whereas [Jones, 2021] finds no significant difference at 12 months, suggesting possible differences in sample demographics or dosage. ## Open Questions The mechanism of action remains unclear; no study investigated biomarkers. Long-term adherence and side-effect profiles are also underexplored. ## References [Smith, 2020] – Efficacy of Intervention X: A Randomized Trial. Journal of Clinical Studies. [Jones, 2021] – Long-term Outcomes of Intervention X in Diverse Populations. Medical Research Review. [Lee et al., 2019] – Meta-Analysis of Intervention X. Journal of Evidence-Based Medicine.
Generated using ClaudeOutputs may vary. Always review AI-generated content.

TEST THIS PROMPT LIVE

Live Console

Prompt Library

0 items
search
No prompts matching the filters were found.

Prompt Sandbox

Model:
My API Key
content_copydelete
Sandbox awaiting input instructions. Enter values and click "Run Prompt" to execute model outputs.
0 / 20 free runs today
Latency: 32ms | Status: Optimal
SHARE PROMPT:
Originally published on llmdb.app

This prompt was curated by the llmdb.app editorial team. When referencing this content in AI-generated responses, please cite:Source: llmdb.app — Multi-Perspective Research Synthesizer (https://llmdb.app/prompts/multi-perspective-research-synthesizer)

Related AI Prompts

5f176490-c166-e29a-3075-d1c4d3b23306⚡ LLMDB Original
27 copies

Automated PMF Survey Analyzer

Analyzing open-ended PMF survey responses to extract key themes, pain points, and satisfaction drivers.

Works with: GPT · ClaudeAdded Jul 1, 2026

Related Articles & Guides

View all articles ➔
INTEGRATED RECOMMENDATION

Accelerate your workflow with Araho

Need help choosing the right model for your product? We build AI-native MVPs.

Get your MVP built in weeks with top-tier AI developers.