---
name: lancet-research-in-context
description: Use to build The Lancet's signature Research in context panel — the three mandatory headed parts (Evidence before this study, Added value of this study, Implications of all the available evidence), grounded in a systematic literature search with stated databases, terms, and dates. Mandatory for original research Articles.
---

# Research in Context Panel (lancet-research-in-context)

## When to trigger

- Writing an original research **Article** for The Lancet (the panel is mandatory).
- There is no panel, or it reads like a discussion paragraph rather than the three required parts.
- The "Evidence before this study" part asserts what was known without a documented systematic search.
- New evidence appeared during review and the panel needs updating.

## Why this is the most distinctive Lancet skill

The **Research in context** panel is The Lancet's signature artifact and is **required for every original research Article**. It forces authors to place their study inside a **systematically searched** evidence base — not a cherry-picked introduction. Editors and reviewers read it early; a weak or search-free panel signals an unsystematic literature review.

## The panel has EXACTLY three headed parts

### 1. Evidence before this study

What was known **before** you did this study, and **how you found it**. This must describe a **systematic search**, not a casual reading:

- The databases searched (e.g., MEDLINE/PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, regional databases such as LILACS/Global Index Medicus for global-health work).
- The **exact search terms / strategy** used.
- The **date range** (and the date the search was last run).
- Any **language restrictions** and inclusion criteria.
- A brief synthesis of what that evidence showed and what remained uncertain — including the **quality/limitations** of prior evidence (a GRADE-style judgement is welcome).

### 2. Added value of this study

What **your study adds** that the prior evidence did not provide — the specific new knowledge, in one short paragraph. Concrete and non-promotional: the new effect estimate, the new population/setting, the resolved uncertainty.

### 3. Implications of all the available evidence

What your findings **plus** the existing evidence mean **together** — for **clinical practice, public-health policy, and future research**. Calibrate causal/practice-changing language to the design. This is where the global-health/equity and policy implications belong.

## Exact template

```
Research in context

Evidence before this study
We searched [databases] for [study types] published between [start date] and
[end date / "the search was last updated on <date>"] using the terms
"[term 1]" AND "[term 2]" [AND "[term 3]"], with [language restrictions / none].
[Inclusion criteria.] [What the existing evidence showed and its key
uncertainties/limitations, ideally with a quality judgement.]

Added value of this study
[In one short paragraph: the specific new knowledge this study provides —
the new estimate, population, setting, or resolved uncertainty.]

Implications of all the available evidence
[What the totality of evidence now implies for clinical practice, for
public-health policy, and for future research — with calibrated causal
language and any equity/global-health implications.]
```

## Quality checks

- [ ] All three headed parts present, in order, with the exact headings.
- [ ] "Evidence before this study" documents a **real systematic search**: databases + terms + dates + language.
- [ ] The search supports the introduction and the abstract's Background (consistent claims).
- [ ] "Added value" is specific and non-promotional.
- [ ] "Implications" speaks to practice, policy, **and** research — not just "more research is needed."
- [ ] Total panel is concise (typically a few hundred words; confirm the current word guidance).

## Output format

```
【Panel parts present】 Evidence before / Added value / Implications — all three? yes/no
【Systematic search documented】 databases + terms + dates + language? yes/no (list gaps)
【Consistency】 search matches Introduction + abstract Background? yes/no
【Added value specific?】 yes/no
【Implications cover practice + policy + research?】 yes/no
【Drafted panel】 the three-part panel, filled
【Next】 lancet-abstract
```

## Anti-patterns

- **Do not** write "Evidence before this study" from memory — it must reflect a documented search with terms and dates.
- **Do not** merge the three parts into one paragraph or drop a heading.
- **Do not** overstate "Added value" beyond what the data support.
- **Do not** end "Implications" on a generic "further studies are warranted" — name the practice/policy consequence.