Checklist
Screen against explicit inclusion criteria, not relevance vibes
Interesting is not the same thing as eligible.
When it fits
- Search results look interesting and the research set keeps expanding because everything seems adjacent.
When to avoid it
- Exploratory scoping may intentionally begin with broader criteria; label that phase rather than pretending it is final screening.
Checklist
- Inclusion criteria are written before deep screening.
- Criteria map directly to the research question.
- The same rule is used for favored and unfavored findings.
- Borderline exclusions have a short reason when stakes justify it.
- Criteria changes are versioned and may trigger rescreening.
Why it matters
Before screening, state what evidence must contain to answer the question: population/context, intervention/exposure, outcome, study type, timeframe or another decision-relevant criterion. Apply the same criteria across records and record a short exclusion reason for borderline items when later audit matters.
An example
For an AI-reliance pack, include studies measuring human advice adoption or decision quality and exclude papers that only discuss model accuracy with no human interaction.
Check your result
Two similar records receive the same eligibility decision for the same reason.
Keep this limit in mind
- Exploratory scoping may intentionally begin with broader criteria; label that phase rather than pretending it is final screening.
Connected ideas
Use beforeStop the search when the next evidence is unlikely to change the decision
Evidence and sources
The 2025 literature-search guide separates scoping, searching, screening and reporting rather than treating one final database query as the whole retrieval process.
The exact workflow is intended for literature reviews and can be simplified for bounded research.
How to search for literature in systematic reviews and meta-analyses: A comprehensive step-by-step guide · Four sequenced and prioritized stages