PRISMA Systematic Literature Review

Run a transparent, reproducible literature review that follows PRISMA 2020, so the process is auditable and the flow numbers reconcile.

When to use

The user is writing a survey/SLR or needs a defensible method for selecting and synthesizing papers on a topic. Not for a quick informal "find me a few papers" (that's just a search) or for reading a single paper.

Workflow

1. Protocol & questions. Pin down the research question(s). Frame with PICO/PICOS

(Population, Intervention, Comparison, Outcome, Study design) or an objective-centric equivalent for CS/ML surveys. Record the protocol before searching; note if it's registered (e.g. PROSPERO) or not.

1. Search strategy. Build the boolean search string from concept blocks joined

with AND, synonyms within a block joined with OR. Record the exact string per database (e.g. Scopus, Web of Science, IEEE Xplore, ACM DL, arXiv), the fields searched, date range, and the date the search was run. Reproducibility hinges on this being verbatim.

1. Eligibility criteria. Write explicit inclusion and exclusion criteria

(language, year range, publication type, peer-review status, on-topic relevance, etc.). Each criterion must be checkable by a second person.

1. PRISMA flow — four stages, with counts at every gate:

• Identification — records found per database + other sources; total.
• Screening — remove duplicates; screen titles/abstracts; record # excluded.
• Eligibility — full-text assessment; record # excluded with reasons.
• Included — final studies in the synthesis.

The numbers must reconcile: identified − duplicates − screened-out − full-text-excluded = included. Produce the flow diagram (or describe each box's count).

1. Data extraction. Define an extraction schema and apply it to every included

study: citation, year, venue, dataset(s), method/architecture, evaluation metrics, key results, limitations, and whatever fields the research questions demand. Keep it as a structured table — one row per study.

1. Quality / risk-of-bias (optional but recommended). Apply a checklist

appropriate to the field; note study limitations that affect synthesis weight.

1. Synthesis. Narrative and/or thematic synthesis organized by the research

questions: trends over time, taxonomy of methods, comparative results, gaps, and open problems. Tie every claim back to extracted evidence — no unsupported summary.

Output

(1) A methods section stating protocol, databases, search strings, criteria, and the PRISMA flow with reconciled counts; (2) the PRISMA flow diagram (or its box-by-box counts); (3) the extraction table (one row per included study); and (4) a synthesis organized by research question with an explicit "gaps & future work" subsection. Keep everything reproducible — anyone should be able to re-run the searches and arrive at the same included set.

Notes / edge cases

• Counts must reconcile end to end. A flow diagram whose numbers don't add up is

the single most common reviewer complaint — check it explicitly.

• Record exclusion reasons at the full-text stage; "excluded: 14" without reasons

is not PRISMA-compliant.

• Distinguish records (search hits) from studies (final units of synthesis); one

study can span multiple records.

• For fast-moving ML topics, note the search date prominently — the field shifts under

the review.