AI Prompt Library for MedComms Agencies

I'm creating a [deliverable: advisory board deck / scientific platform / speaker deck / manuscript / MSL training / congress summary] for [audience] about [topic].

I'll provide source documents, references, client direction, and any existing materials.

First, identify:

1. The core scientific story the materials support
2. The 5-8 most important messages
3. The logical sequence in which those messages should appear
4. Evidence supporting each message
5. Important evidence gaps or contradictions

Then create a proposed content outline.

For every section include:

• Communication objective
• Key message
• Evidence to use
• Suggested slide/page title
• 2-4 supporting bullets
• Reference(s)
• Any claims that need additional substantiation

Do not start writing polished copy until you have organized the evidence into the narrative.

I'm going to give you clinical study information that is too dense for a presentation.

Rewrite it for a [HCP / specialist / payer / MSL / internal pharma] audience.

Create:

• A takeaway-style slide title
• Maximum 3-4 main bullets
• Any necessary sub-bullets
• A one-sentence "so what?" interpretation
• Suggested visual treatment for the data

Preserve clinically meaningful qualifiers, denominators, endpoints, timepoints, statistical information, and limitations.

Do not make the study sound stronger than the evidence supports.

Then show me:
Original meaning -> Simplified wording

so I can confirm that simplification has not changed the scientific meaning.

Analyze this advisory board transcript as a senior medical strategist.

Do not simply summarize what participants said.

Identify:

• Repeated themes
• Areas of strong agreement
• Areas of disagreement
• Unexpected comments
• Unmet educational needs
• Clinical decision drivers
• Barriers to treatment/use
• Evidence physicians appear to want
• Misconceptions or confusion
• Differences between participant types, if identifiable
• Statements that could materially affect medical strategy

For every major insight provide:

Insight:
Evidence from discussion:
Why it matters:
Potential implication for the client:
Confidence: High / Moderate / Low

Separate genuine insights from comments that were merely mentioned once.

Using the transcript, discussion guide, objectives, and any notes I provide, draft an executive summary for a pharmaceutical client.

Structure it as:

1. What we heard
5-7 most important findings.

2. What it means
Strategic interpretation of those findings.

3. What the client should consider
Potential medical affairs, evidence-generation, education, communication, or field implications.

4. Areas requiring further investigation

Keep the distinction between participant feedback and strategic interpretation explicit.

Prioritize information based on importance to the advisory board objectives, not simply frequency of mention.

Review the materials I provide and create an evidence table for the claims in this deliverable.

Use these columns:

Evaluate whether each source supports:

• The exact population
• Endpoint
• Comparator
• Timepoint
• Direction of effect
• Magnitude
• Statistical interpretation

Flag claims that:

• Overstate the source
• Combine findings from different studies
• Drop important qualifiers
• Imply causality where none was demonstrated
• Use a broader population than the evidence
• Would require additional substantiation

I'm going to provide a piece of content plus MLR comments.

For every comment:

1. Explain what the reviewer is actually asking for in plain English.
2. Identify whether the issue is primarily medical, legal, regulatory, editorial, or unclear.
3. Recommend the minimum revision needed to resolve it.
4. Draft the revised copy.
5. Identify any downstream slides/pages that may need corresponding changes.

Return everything in a table:

Do not automatically accept a reviewer interpretation if it appears inconsistent with the provided source material. Flag those cases separately.

Review this deck as if you were the Medical Director doing final internal review.

Ignore minor grammar initially. Focus on the scientific story.

For each slide tell me:

• What job the slide is performing
• Whether it advances the narrative
• Whether it repeats another slide
• Whether anything important is missing before or after it

Then assess the entire deck for:

• Narrative flow
• Evidence hierarchy
• Redundancy
• Unsupported leaps in logic
• Disconnects between objectives and content
• Excessive background
• Missing clinical context
• Weak conclusions

Finish by proposing a revised slide order and identifying slides that should be removed, combined, split, or created.

Review this advisory board discussion guide.

The objective is not to generate polite conversation. It is to uncover information the client can actually use.

For every question assess:

• What insight it is intended to generate
• Whether it is likely to generate that insight
• Whether it is leading
• Whether it is too broad
• Whether physicians can answer it meaningfully
• Whether a stronger probe is needed

Rewrite weak questions.

Add probes designed to uncover:

• Why
• Decision criteria
• Tradeoffs
• Evidence thresholds
• Patient types
• Barriers
• Exceptions
• Differences in practice

Identify any client objectives that the guide currently fails to address.