Create screening criteria and a data extraction form for a review
Defines clear inclusion/exclusion rules and a piloted extraction template so screening and extraction are consistent across reviewers.
The prompt
Help me set up study screening and data extraction for my systematic or scoping review.
Review question and framework (PICO, PCC, etc.): [DETAILS]
Study designs of interest: [DETAILS]
Outcomes or concepts to capture: [LIST]
Number of reviewers and tool: [e.g. "2 reviewers in Covidence", "spreadsheet"]
Risk-of-bias or quality tool planned: [e.g. RoB 2, ROBINS-I, CASP, JBI, or "suggest"]
Create:
1. Eligibility criteria as a table: Criterion | Include | Exclude | Notes for edge cases. Cover population, exposure or intervention, comparator, outcomes, design, setting, language, date, and publication type.
2. Title/abstract screening rules (lean inclusive) vs. full-text rules (strict), with an ordered list of exclusion reasons for the PRISMA flow diagram.
3. A data extraction form: field name, definition, allowed values or format, and an example. Include study ID, design, sample, setting, intervention details, outcome measures, results data needed for synthesis, funding, and conflicts.
4. A calibration plan: pilot on 5-10 studies, how to measure agreement (e.g. Cohen's kappa), and how disagreements are resolved.
Return all four as ready-to-use tables. Flag fields whose definitions I need to decide as [DECIDE].
Highlighted [brackets] are blanks to replace with your own details.
Fill in the blanks and use this promptMore Research & Summaries prompts
What to fill in
- DETAILS
- LIST
- e.g. "2 reviewers in Covidence", "spreadsheet"
- e.g. RoB 2, ROBINS-I, CASP, JBI, or "suggest"
- DECIDE
How this prompt is built
This prompt follows the Few-Shot structure (Few-shot prompting). A few-shot prompt includes one or more worked examples of the input and the output you want, so the model can copy the pattern instead of guessing it.
Related prompts
- Compare companies, products, or approaches objectivelyA fair, evidence-based comparison table of companies, products, or approaches, with sources, unknowns, and best-fit scenarios.
- Check my manuscript against a reporting guidelineAudits a draft against the right reporting checklist (CONSORT, STROBE, PRISMA, and more) and lists exactly what's missing.
- Peer-review an academic paper or thesisA rigorous reviewer-style critique of a paper's contribution, methods, and clarity.
- Polish academic writing for clarity and toneEdits academic prose to be precise, formal, and well-argued without changing the content.