Helps journalists and researchers find, read, and critically evaluate meta-analyses and systematic reviews for evidence-based reporting.
How this skill is triggered — by the user, by Claude, or both
Slash command
/autopunk-media-skills:meta-analysis-finderThe summary Claude sees in its skill listing — used to decide when to auto-load this skill
Explains what meta-analyses and systematic reviews are, how to locate them for a given topic, and how to read them critically — giving journalists a reliable route to the strongest available evidence without relying on individual studies.
Explains what meta-analyses and systematic reviews are, how to locate them for a given topic, and how to read them critically — giving journalists a reliable route to the strongest available evidence without relying on individual studies.
Required: The topic or question you are investigating (e.g., "does intermittent fasting affect cardiovascular risk," "effectiveness of school-based mental health programmes," "air pollution and cognitive decline") Optional: Any time period you want to focus on (e.g., last five years); whether you want population-level or clinical evidence; any specific population group (children, older adults, low-income settings)
Two-part briefing, 450–650 words total. Part 1 — Orientation (150–200 words): what meta-analyses are and why they matter for this topic. Part 2 — How to find and read them (300–450 words): specific databases to search, search terms to use, what to look for when you open a review, and how to translate the findings. Plain language throughout; all statistical terms explained on first use. Written for a journalist, not a researcher.
Topic: social media use and adolescent mental health I keep seeing studies pointing in different directions. Is there a stronger type of evidence I should be looking for? How do I find it and know if it's reliable?
Meta-Analysis Finder: Social Media Use and Adolescent Mental Health
Part 1 — Why This Matters
When individual studies contradict each other — which happens constantly in this field — the most useful evidence comes from a meta-analysis or systematic review. Here is the difference:
A systematic review collects and summarises every published study on a question, following a documented methodology so others can check the work. A meta-analysis goes further: it pools the data from multiple studies and runs a combined statistical analysis, producing a single estimate of the effect.
Think of it this way: one study of 200 teenagers in one country is interesting but limited. A meta-analysis drawing on 40 studies across 12 countries and 80,000 participants is substantially more reliable — not infallible, but much harder to dismiss. For social media and mental health, this matters because the field has been noisy and contested, and meta-analyses help separate the signal from the noise.
Part 2 — How to Find and Read Them
Where to search
Start with two free resources:
social media adolescents depression systematic review. Filter by publication date to find recent reviews (last five years).For this topic specifically, also try PsycINFO through your local library — it indexes psychology journals that PubMed sometimes misses.
What to look for when you open a review
Three things tell you quickly whether a meta-analysis is worth relying on:
Translating the findings
Meta-analyses often report results as an effect size — a number that describes how strong a relationship is, not just whether it exists. A small effect size (roughly 0.2 or below in most scales) means the relationship is real but modest; a large effect size (above 0.8) suggests a strong association. For social media and mental health, most meta-analyses to date have found small-to-moderate effect sizes — meaning the association is real but explains only a fraction of variation in mental health outcomes. That is a more honest story than "social media causes depression."
A word of caution
Meta-analyses are not the final word. If the underlying studies all have the same design flaw — relying on self-reported screen time, for instance — pooling them amplifies the flaw as well as the signal. Always check what kind of studies went in. A meta-analysis of weak studies is still weak.
npx claudepluginhub ur-grue/autopunk-media-skills --plugin autopunk-media-skillsConducts systematic, scoping, narrative, or meta-analysis literature reviews across academic, biomedical, and technical domains. Uses PICO and structured search protocols.
Guides systematic, scoping, and narrative literature reviews using PRISMA/PRISMA-ScR protocols, Boolean/MeSH search strategies, databases (PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, Embase), screening, extraction, synthesis, and reporting.
Plans and writes systematic reviews of scientific literature following PRISMA guidelines — from protocol registration through search, screening, risk-of-bias assessment, and evidence synthesis.