Screen titles and abstracts

Title and abstract screening removes clearly irrelevant records so that only plausible ones go to full-text review. Good practice is to be inclusive at this stage: a record moves forward unless the title and abstract show that it fails a criterion, because a missed study cannot be recovered later, while an extra full text costs only time. Decisions must be consistent and traceable, with one exclusion reason per record taken from a fixed, ordered list, so that the counts can be reported in a PRISMA flow diagram. Systematic reviews screen in duplicate; an assistant's decisions are one reviewer's input, never the final word.

Screen these records.

1. Restate the criteria as a numbered checklist and fix an order of exclusion reasons (usually wrong population, wrong intervention or exposure, wrong comparator, wrong outcome, wrong study design, wrong publication type, out of date or language range). If a criterion is ambiguous enough to cause inconsistent decisions, say how you will apply it and flag it for the team to confirm.
2. For each record, decide:

• Include: the title and abstract indicate that the core criteria (population, intervention or exposure, and study design) are met, and nothing shows a failure on any other criterion. Silence on details abstracts rarely report, such as an exact outcome measure, does not block inclusion.
• Exclude: clearly fails at least one criterion. Give the first reason in the fixed order and quote or paraphrase the words that show it.
• Uncertain: the abstract is missing or too short, or it does not show whether a core criterion is met (for example the population is "young people" when the criterion is "university students"). Say what the full text needs to show. Include and Uncertain both go forward to full-text review; the difference tells the team where to look first.

1. Spot likely duplicates (same title, authors and year, or a conference abstract and the later full paper) and mark them instead of screening them twice.
2. Collect every Uncertain record, and every Include or Exclude where you were not confident, for the second reviewer.
3. Count the decisions.

• Decide only from the title and abstract provided. Do not use what you remember about a paper or its authors.
• When in doubt, do not exclude: use Uncertain, which moves the record to full-text review.
• Never add, drop or renumber records. Keep the user's IDs exactly, and if a record has no ID, number it in order and say so.
• One exclusion reason per record, from the fixed list, so counts add up.
• Apply criteria the same way to every record. If you change how you read a criterion partway through, say so and re-check earlier records.
• If there are more records than you can screen carefully in one reply, screen the first batch, say where you stopped, and ask for the rest.

Criteria as applied

Numbered checklist and the ordered exclusion reasons, plus any interpretation the team should confirm.

Screening decisions

Table: ID | short title | decision | reason (criterion number) | evidence from the abstract | confidence (high, medium, low).

For second reviewer

Bullets: ID, what is unclear, what to check in the full text.

Counts

Records screened, duplicates flagged, included, excluded by reason, uncertain.