inclusion-criteria

Inclusion and exclusion criteria establish study eligibility rules applied across title/abstract and full-text screening phases. Use the PICOS framework—population, intervention, comparison, outcome, study design—to define criteria upfront, then document each exclusion reason systematically to ensure transparent, reproducible screening aligned with PRISMA standards.

PICOS is a structured approach defining Population, Intervention, Comparison, Outcomes, and Study design criteria for systematic reviews. It ensures eligibility decisions are explicit and consistent by breaking study selection into five concrete dimensions, reducing subjective judgment and supporting reproducible screening protocols.

PRISMA compliance requires recording why each excluded study failed your criteria and logging all screening decisions. Document exclusion reasons during full-text review against your predefined inclusion/exclusion rules, then use this audit trail to populate PRISMA flow diagrams showing study attrition at each stage.

Yes. Title and abstract screening is the first filtering stage using your inclusion criteria to rapidly exclude clearly ineligible studies. Apply the same criteria rules as full-text review but at reduced detail, then proceed to full-text review for borderline or potentially eligible records.

Screening protocols with explicit criteria and logged decisions enable conflict detection and resolution. When reviewers disagree, review the recorded rationale against your PICOS-based criteria, discuss deviations, and document the final decision to maintain consistency and transparency in your systematic review.

The framework supports any language if your inclusion criteria explicitly define language scope. The quick-start example uses English-language studies; adjust your criteria to include or exclude languages based on your review's scope and resource availability.