VerdictPal
Join
GuidesPlaybook

Systematic review protocol

A registered review protocol with search strategy, inclusion criteria, and quality assessment plan.

Advanced
Start now
Playbook

Systematic review protocol

A registered review protocol with search strategy, inclusion criteria, and quality assessment plan.

Steps5Time~95 minArtifactReview protocolLeveladvanced
Before you start
  • Review question finalized
  • Familiarity with PRISMA guidelines
  • Access to relevant databases
Tools in this guide
ElicitSemantic Scholar
0%0/5 steps

Systematic reviewer · 2–3 hours

A systematic review without a protocol is just a literature review with ambition.

This runbook builds a reproducible protocol before you start searching.

Review protocol

Review protocol

Registered protocol with PICO framework, search strings, inclusion/exclusion criteria, and quality assessment tool.

Define the PICO question

20 minElicit

Write Population, Intervention, Comparison, and Outcome for your review.

A structured PICO question.
Pitfall
Writing a PICO question so broad it could match hundreds of studies.
Verification
A domain expert would agree the scope is manageable.

Build the search strategy

40 minSemantic Scholar

Write Boolean search strings for at least three databases and test them against known relevant papers.

Search strings for three databases.
Pitfall
Using only keyword searches — controlled vocabulary captures more relevant studies.
Verification
The search returns known relevant papers from your preliminary reading.

Set inclusion/exclusion criteria

15 min

Define what gets in (study type, years, language, population) and what stays out, with reasons.

A criteria table with inclusion and exclusion rules.
Pitfall
Excluding studies by language without justification — this can bias results.
Verification
Two researchers would apply the same criteria to the same paper.

Choose quality assessment tool

10 min

Select a risk-of-bias tool appropriate for your study design (RoB 2, Newcastle-Ottawa, etc.).

Selected quality assessment tool with scoring rubric.
Pitfall
Using a generic quality checklist instead of a validated tool for your study type.
Verification
The tool is cited in published systematic reviews of the same study type.

Register the protocol

10 min

Upload the protocol to PROSPERO or your institutional registry.

Registered protocol with timestamp.
Pitfall
Skipping registration — it looks like you changed methods after seeing results.
Verification
The protocol has a registration number and timestamp.
Finish line

You should now have: Review protocol.

  • The PICO question is specific enough to be answered by a systematic search.
  • Search strings have been tested against known relevant papers.
  • Inclusion/exclusion criteria are explicit and would produce inter-rater agreement.

PrivacyDo not upload unpublished manuscripts or confidential review data to consumer tools. Use institutional databases and local storage for sensitive review materials.