Eligibility before results
Specify eligibility before examining results, then record the reasons for each inclusion or exclusion. Plan synthesis groups around the comparisons the review is intended to answer.
Research design · Demonstration study
A review question that can survive the evidence
From a broad topic to explicit eligibility, traceable selection and a synthesis plan that keeps different questions apart.
The brief
What needs work?
Develop a systematic intervention-review protocol for structured written feedback in postgraduate academic writing. The worked protocol below is a demonstration; the search has not been run.
The challenge
Revision quality, satisfaction and confidence are different outcomes. A convincing plan must define what it intends to compare before searching, and must not conceal missing information or count multiple reports as separate studies.
Working excerpt · Illustrative material
Protocol excerpt and synthetic selection record
- 420Records identified
- 330Records screened
- 60Reports sought
- 56Reports assessed
- 16Reports retained
- 14Studies represented
The record of duplicates, exclusions and companion reports is shown below.
| Dimension | Include | Record or resolve |
|---|---|---|
| Population | Postgraduate students revising academic writing. | Separate undergraduate-only samples; resolve mixed samples from available subgroup data. |
| Intervention | Written feedback that links a criterion to an actionable revision. | Record delivery, timing, length and accompanying discussion. |
| Comparator | Usual feedback without the required structured format. | Extract what usual practice actually involved. |
| Design | Randomised trials and controlled non-randomised intervention studies. | Keep design categories separate in extraction, appraisal and synthesis. |
| Outcomes | The primary outcome is first-revision quality. | Record writing performance and self-reported experience separately where relevant. Unreported primary results do not by themselves exclude an otherwise eligible study. |
If the table extends beyond your screen, scroll horizontally to see all columns.
01 / Define the comparison
Among postgraduate students revising academic writing, how does structured written feedback compare with usual written feedback in its effects on first-revision quality? Structured feedback requires both a reference to an explicit criterion and an actionable revision instruction. The comparator is ordinary written feedback without that required structure. Record feedback length, timing and accompanying discussion as potential differences between conditions. Randomised trials and controlled non-randomised intervention studies belong in separate synthesis groups. The primary outcome is first-revision quality. Writing performance and self-reported experience are recorded separately where relevant; unreported primary results do not by themselves exclude an otherwise eligible study.
02 / Make the search inspectable
Draft search query, not yet run: (postgraduat* OR doctoral OR master*) AND (feedback OR comment* OR annotat* OR rubric*) AND (writ* OR draft* OR revis*). Translate syntax for the selected database and platform, test sensitivity against known relevant reports, and record dates, limits and export counts. Determine written format and comparator eligibility during screening; requiring their wording in the query could miss relevant records.
03 / Reconcile the selection flow
Synthetic selection record: 420 identified records − 90 duplicates = 330 screened; 330 − 270 title/abstract exclusions = 60 reports sought; 60 − 4 not retrieved = 56 assessed; 56 − 40 full-report exclusions = 16 retained reports representing 14 fictional studies. Two reports are companion reports. The 40 full-report exclusions comprise 17 wrong population, 11 wrong intervention, 8 ineligible design and 4 ineligible comparison.
04 / Expose missing evidence
Fictional extraction rows: DEMO-A | randomised comparison | first-revision rubric score | assessor masking unclear | dispersion available. DEMO-B | controlled non-randomised comparison | first-revision quality measured, result unreported | author query required. Each row in a completed review would link to its source report.
05 / Keep the synthesis meaningful
Group the evidence by design, feedback components, outcome construct and measurement occasion. Report confidence ratings separately from writing-quality scores. If the studies cannot support a meaningful pooled estimate, present their results in an organised evidence table and explain the differences.
Read alongside the reasoning and limitations below. These excerpts are not a complete commissioned deliverable.
Editorial & methodological judgement
Why these decisions?
The value is in the choices that connect the brief to the result.
Reporting is not validation
PRISMA helps authors report how studies were identified and selected. The protocol separately defines how the search, eligibility assessment and synthesis will be conducted.
Keep uncertainty visible
An unclear method or unavailable result becomes a query or limitation. It is not filled in with an assumption that makes the evidence appear stronger.
Review checklist
What to check.
- Question, eligibility and synthesis groups agree.
- All synthetic selection totals reconcile; reports and studies remain distinct.
- Outcome availability is not confused with a positive result.
- Search syntax stays labelled untested; no effect or certainty rating is invented.
A possible commissioned handover
What to specify.
- Protocol excerpt and eligibility note
- Search-log template
- Synthetic selection flow and extraction rows
- Synthesis decision note
The actual deliverable list, format and review stages are agreed in your quote.
Method & further reading
These sources explain the approach. They do not report, endorse or validate the fictional example above.
Bring your own brief
Make the next step specific.
Explore this service See what your quote includes Discuss your projectAnother kind of work