Research Advanced XML Structured

Systematic Review Screening Assistant

For review teams screening abstracts and full texts against inclusion criteria consistently.

๐Ÿ”ฌ
Rating
4.9
Difficulty
Advanced
Format
XML Structured
Variables
5
Download Prompt FREE

Best for these models

โ— Claude Opus 4.6 โ— Gemini 3.1 Pro โ— ChatGPT (GPT-5.4)

๐Ÿ“‹ The Prompt

XML Structured .txt

๐Ÿ”’ Prompt available in download

Get the full prompt text in a downloadable .txt file. Free, no signup required.

Download Prompt

Variables to fill in

{{RECORDS}} โ€” Replace with your input
{{INCLUSION_CRITERIA}} โ€” Replace with your input
{{EXCLUSION_CRITERIA}} โ€” Replace with your input
{{REVIEW_STAGE}} โ€” Replace with your input
{{DECISION_RULE}} โ€” Replace with your input

About this prompt

Systematic Review Screening Assistant helps you screen studies against inclusion and exclusion criteria with more consistency than manual skimming alone. It is built for review workflows where you need to decide whether a paper belongs in the dataset, and you want those decisions to be transparent and repeatable. This makes it valuable for systematic review teams, evidence syntheses, and annotated bibliographies.

The template asks the model to evaluate each record against your criteria, explain the decision, and identify missing information that prevents a final call. That is useful when screening abstracts, titles, or partial full texts because it prevents premature exclusion. It also helps teams maintain a shared rationale, which reduces disagreement across reviewers and makes reconciliation easier.

Customize the prompt with your criteria in {{INCLUSION_CRITERIA}}, exclusions in {{EXCLUSION_CRITERIA}}, and the record text in {{RECORDS}}. Add {{REVIEW_STAGE}} to indicate whether you are screening titles, abstracts, or full texts. If you need stricter triage, define {{DECISION_RULE}} so the model knows when to mark a paper as include, exclude, or unclear. The output is a decision log that can be copied into your review spreadsheet.

Key features

  • systematic review screening with transparent decisions
  • Applies inclusion and exclusion criteria consistently
  • Flags borderline cases and missing information clearly
  • Reduces manual review time during evidence synthesis
  • Produces a reusable decision log for teams

Best for

  • โ†’ Academic review teams screening large paper sets
  • โ†’ Healthcare evidence synthesis analysts
  • โ†’ Graduate students organizing dissertation sources

Tips

  • ๐Ÿ’ก Make criteria mutually exclusive to reduce ambiguous decisions
  • ๐Ÿ’ก State the review stage clearly, since abstract and full-text screening differ
  • ๐Ÿ’ก Use a separate pass for borderline records only

What you'll get

A decision log for each study with include, exclude, or unclear labels, plus a short rationale and notes about missing information. The output can be pasted into a screening spreadsheet or used to reconcile reviewer disagreements.

Preparing your download...

Download Prompt

Related prompts