Systematic Review Screening Assistant
For review teams screening abstracts and full texts against inclusion criteria consistently.
Best for these models
๐ The Prompt
๐ Prompt available in download
Get the full prompt text in a downloadable .txt file. Free, no signup required.
Download PromptVariables 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
- ๐ก Make criteria mutually exclusive to reduce ambiguous decisions
- ๐ก State the review stage clearly, since abstract and full-text screening differ
- ๐ก 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 PromptRelated prompts
Claim Evidence Traceback Auditor
For editors and researchers tracing a claim back to its original supporting evidence.
Cross-Study Evidence Comparator
For analysts comparing multiple studies to find consensus, contradictions, and evidence quality fast.
Customer Discovery Interview Pathfinder
For founders and product teams preparing discovery interviews that test assumptions and uncover unmet needs.
Emerging Trend Signal Scanner
For strategists monitoring articles, notes, and market signals to spot early trend movement.