Extract for a systematic review

Define your extraction schema once, attach a paper, and Anara fills every field using only what the paper reports, quoting the passages it used so you can verify. Use it when working through a systematic review bibliography one paper at a time.

Prompt

A public health PhD student extracts from one of 62 included papers on physical activity interventions in adolescents.

I am conducting a systematic review on physical activity interventions in adolescents aged 10-18. I have a fixed extraction schema. For the attached paper, fill in every field below using only what the paper reports. If a field is not addressed, write "Not reported." Do not infer or generalize from other studies.

Fields to extract:
- Study design
- Sample size and population
- Country
- Intervention type and duration
- Control condition
- Primary outcome measure and result
- Secondary outcomes
- Limitations stated by the authors

At the bottom, quote the three passages from the paper you relied on most heavily for the outcomes fields.

What to add to your library

• Required: the paper, attached as a PDF or imported to your library.
• Required: your extraction schema, with any protocol-specific definitions.
• Optional: one or two completed rows, so Anara matches your detail and format.
• Optional: your inclusion and exclusion criteria, to flag applicability issues before extracting.

What you get

• A completed extraction row, one field per line, drawn strictly from the paper.
• "Not reported" wherever the paper is silent, keeping the log consistent.
• Quoted passages behind the outcome fields, for immediate verification.

Follow-ups

Run the same schema across a folder.

I have a folder called "Included Studies" with 20 papers ready for extraction. Use Deep Search to run the same extraction schema across every paper in this folder and return one completed row per paper. Flag any paper where a field could not be reliably extracted. Use only what each paper reports.

Extraction fields: [paste your schema here]

Compare two papers that disagree on an outcome.

Two papers in my extraction log report physical activity frequency as a primary outcome but arrive at different effect estimates. Pull the relevant passages from both papers and tell me whether the difference is likely explained by measurement approach, population, or something else the papers name explicitly.

Tips

• "Using only what the paper reports" is the load-bearing instruction. Restate it every session.
• Asking for quoted passages turns each extraction into a self-auditing unit you check right away.
• Data in tables, appendices, or figure legends can be missed. Check outcome fields against the paper's tables.
• Paste each row into your spreadsheet immediately after reviewing the quotes.