> ## Documentation Index
> Fetch the complete documentation index at: https://docs.consensus.app/llms.txt
> Use this file to discover all available pages before exploring further.

# Find a real citation for every claim in a draft

> Paste a draft section and get every empirical claim matched to a real, verifiable paper — or flagged as unsupported before a reviewer finds it.

## What you get

Your draft back, claim by claim, with a real citation attached to each one — journal, year, DOI, and a link to the paper on Consensus. Claims the literature does not support come back flagged rather than quietly cited to something adjacent.

This is the most common thing people do with Consensus MCP. Researchers writing with an AI assistant report going from citations they could not verify at all to a draft where nearly every claim checks out.

## Who it's for

Anyone drafting with an LLM in the loop: PhD students writing a thesis chapter, clinicians writing a discussion section, postdocs turning results into a manuscript. Works in whatever you already write with — Claude, ChatGPT, Claude Code.

## The prompt

Paste your draft section after this. Works as-is in any MCP client.

```text theme={null}
You are a research librarian and evidence synthesis specialist.

Task:
For the draft text below, find a real peer-reviewed citation for every empirical
claim, using Consensus. Do not write new prose. Do not improve my argument.

Procedure, per claim:
1. Extract the claim as a standalone proposition. Name the population, the
   exposure or intervention, and the outcome. If any of those three is missing
   from my text, say so rather than assuming one.
2. Search Consensus for it. Run at least three phrasings covering synonyms and
   the terminology the relevant field actually uses.
3. Prefer the strongest available design: meta-analyses and systematic reviews
   first, then randomized trials, then observational studies. Note which tier
   you ended up in.
4. Read the abstract and the key takeaway. Confirm the paper supports the claim
   as I stated it, not merely the general topic.

Classify every claim as exactly one of:
- SUPPORTED — a paper supports it as stated. Give the citation and one quoted
  sentence or takeaway showing why.
- PARTLY SUPPORTED — the evidence supports a narrower version. Give the
  citation and write the narrower claim I should use instead.
- CONTRADICTED — the weight of evidence points the other way. Give the citation.
- NO EVIDENCE FOUND — you searched and found nothing on point. Say what you
  searched. Do not substitute a loosely related paper.

Rules:
- Never cite a paper you did not retrieve through Consensus in this session.
- Do not merge two claims to make one citation fit.
- Common-knowledge and methodological statements need no citation. Skip them
  and say you did.

Output a table: Claim | Verdict | Citation (authors, year, journal, DOI) |
Evidence quote | Suggested rewording if needed.

Draft text:
[PASTE YOUR DRAFT SECTION]
```

## How it works

<Steps>
  <Step title="Claims get isolated before anything is searched">
    Most bad citation matching happens because a sentence carrying three claims gets one citation. Forcing each claim into a standalone proposition with a named population, exposure, and outcome is what makes the search specific enough to be checkable.
  </Step>

  <Step title="Several phrasings per claim">
    A single phrasing is one search. Three or more across synonyms and field-specific terminology is the difference between "no evidence found" and finding the paper that exists.
  </Step>

  <Step title="Design tier is recorded, not just the citation">
    Knowing you ended up citing an observational study rather than a trial changes how you should word the sentence. Ask for the tier and you get that for free.
  </Step>

  <Step title="Four verdicts, not two">
    The `PARTLY SUPPORTED` bucket is where most of the value is — it turns an overclaim into a defensible sentence instead of forcing a binary keep-or-cut decision.
  </Step>
</Steps>

## The API equivalent

If you are building this into a writing tool rather than running it in a chat, search per extracted claim and keep the design tier explicit:

```bash theme={null}
curl -G "https://api.consensus.app/v1/search" \
  -H "x-api-key: $CONSENSUS_API_KEY" \
  --data-urlencode "query=resistance training muscle strength adults over 60" \
  --data-urlencode "study_types=meta-analysis,systematic review,rct" \
  --data-urlencode "human=true" \
  --data-urlencode "page_size=20"
```

Each result carries `title`, `authors`, `journal_name`, `publish_year`, `doi`, `citation_count`, and `url`. On paid plans, `study_type` and `takeaway` come back too — `takeaway` is what you show the writer as the evidence quote.

## What to check before you trust it

* **`NO EVIDENCE FOUND` is a real answer.** If you get none of them across a whole section, the prompt is being too accommodating — the model is stretching papers to fit. Re-run and insist on the distinction.
* **Check one citation by hand per section.** Open the `url` and confirm the paper says what the table claims. Calibrate once, then trust the pattern.
* **Watch for topic-level matches.** A paper about the right subject that never tested your specific claim is the most common failure. The requirement to quote a supporting sentence is what catches it.
* **The tier matters for wording.** A claim supported only by observational evidence should not be written as though a trial established it.

## Related

<CardGroup cols={2}>
  <Card title="Verify that every citation is real and supports its claim" icon="triangle-exclamation" href="/use-cases/citation-verification">
    The other half of the job: verify the references you already have.
  </Card>

  <Card title="Build a reusable literature-review workflow" icon="wand-magic-sparkles" href="/use-cases/literature-review-skill">
    Make this repeatable instead of pasting the prompt every time.
  </Card>

  <Card title="Best practices" icon="shapes" href="/use-cases/best-practices">
    Fan-out, the filter ladder, and the rest of the primitives.
  </Card>

  <Card title="All use cases" icon="grid-2" href="/use-cases">
    Browse the gallery by persona.
  </Card>
</CardGroup>