Description:

This Master Prompt would focus on evaluating the credibility, methodological strength, relevance, and interpretive limitations of evidence included in a narrative review. It would guide researchers in determining whether formal quality appraisal is appropriate, selecting appraisal criteria or tools where justified, identifying methodological weaknesses, comparing evidence of different designs, and explaining how evidence quality affects the conclusions that can reasonably be drawn.

A major emphasis would be placed on distinguishing poor-quality evidence, heterogeneous evidence, conflicting evidence, incomplete evidence, and absence of evidence. Researchers would be prevented from treating all included publications as equally persuasive merely because they appear in the narrative. Where appropriate, tools such as SANRA, MMAT, risk-of-bias approaches, or discipline-specific appraisal frameworks could complement expert interpretation.