Typical Criteria Used in a Systematic Literature Review

In a systematic literature review (SLR), the aim is to identify, appraise, and synthesize all relevant studies to answer a well-defined research question. To ensure transparency, rigor, and replicability, researchers usually apply a set of criteria at different stages of the review. These can be grouped into several categories outlined below.

1. Eligibility (Inclusion and Exclusion) Criteria

These define which studies are relevant. Commonly based on:

• Publication type: peer-reviewed vs. grey literature.
• Language: often restricted to English.
• Timeframe: specific publication years.
• Population/sample: e.g., age, industry, geography.
• Study design: RCTs, case studies, qualitative, quantitative, etc.
• Context/setting: e.g., healthcare, education, organizational studies.

References:

Petticrew, M., & Roberts, H. (2006). Systematic reviews in the social sciences: A practical guide. Oxford: Blackwell.

2. Quality Assessment Criteria

Used to appraise methodological rigor:

• Clear objectives/research questions.
• Appropriateness of study design.
• Transparency of methods (sampling, data collection, analysis).
• Validity and reliability of results.
• Ethical considerations reported.
• Acknowledgment of limitations.

Standard tools:

• CASP (Critical Appraisal Skills Programme, 2018).
• Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI, 2020).
• Cochrane Risk of Bias tool (Higgins et al., 2019).

References:

Higgins, J. P. T., Thomas, J., Chandler, J., Cumpston, M., Li, T., Page, M. J., & Welch, V. A. (Eds.). (2019). Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions (2nd ed.). Wiley.

Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP). (2018). CASP checklists. Oxford: CASP UK.

3. Screening Criteria

Applied during the filtering process:

• Removal of duplicates.
• Title/ screening against eligibility.
• Abstract screening against eligibility.
• Full-text screening for deeper assessment.

References:

Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., Altman, D. G., & The PRISMA Group. (2009). Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement. PLoS Medicine, 6(7), e1000097.

4. Data Extraction and Synthesis Criteria

Ensures consistent coding and comparison:

• Bibliographic details.
• Research objectives/questions.
• Population and setting.
• Study design and methods.
• Key findings.
• Limitations.
• Relevance to research question.

References:

Booth, A., Sutton, A., & Papaioannou, D. (2016). Systematic approaches to a successful literature review (2nd ed.). Sage.

5. Reporting Criteria

Ensures transparency, replicability, and completeness:

• PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses).
• AMSTAR 2 (A measurement tool to assess systematic reviews).
• Cochrane Handbook guidelines.

References:

Shea, B. J., Reeves, B. C., Wells, G., Thuku, M., Hamel, C., Moran, J., ... & Henry, D. A. (2017). AMSTAR 2: A critical appraisal tool for systematic reviews that include randomized or non-randomized studies of healthcare interventions, or both. BMJ, 358, j4008.

Page, M. J., McKenzie, J. E., Bossuyt, P. M., Boutron, I., Hoffmann, T. C., Mulrow, C. D., ... & Moher, D. (2021). The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ, 372, n71.

Summary

• Eligibility criteria : define scope (Petticrew & Roberts, 2006).
• Quality assessment: ensure rigor (Higgins et al., 2019; CASP, 2018).
• Screening criteria: systematic filtering (Moher et al., 2009).
• Data extraction criteria: consistency in synthesis (Booth et al., 2016).
• Reporting criteria: transparency (Page et al., 2021; Shea et al., 2017).

‍