name: systematic-review-protocol
description: "A specialized skill providing PRISMA protocols and literature search strategies for systematic reviews. Used by the literature-searcher and critic-synthesizer agents when systematically searching, screening, and synthesizing academic literature. Automatically applied in contexts involving 'systematic review,' 'PRISMA,' 'literature search strategy,' 'inclusion/exclusion criteria,' or 'Boolean search.' Note: direct access to academic databases (Scopus, WoS) and meta-analysis statistical execution are outside the scope of this skill."
Systematic Review Protocol
A specialized skill that enhances the literature review capabilities of the literature-searcher and critic-synthesizer agents.
Target Agents
- literature-searcher — Search strategy, PRISMA flow diagram, inclusion/exclusion criteria
- critic-synthesizer — Critical appraisal, thematic synthesis, research gap identification
PRISMA 2020 Flow Diagram
Identification
├── Database search: n = [X]
├── Registry search: n = [Y]
└── Other sources: n = [Z]
|
After deduplication: n = [A]
|
Screening
├── Title/Abstract screening: n = [A]
│ └── Excluded: n = [B] (classified by reason)
│
Eligibility
├── Full-text assessment: n = [C]
│ └── Excluded: n = [D]
│ ├── Reason 1: n = [d1]
│ ├── Reason 2: n = [d2]
│ └── Reason 3: n = [d3]
│
Included
└── Final included: n = [E]
├── Quantitative studies: n = [e1]
└── Qualitative studies: n = [e2]
Search Strategy Design
PICO/PICo Framework
Quantitative Research (PICO):
| Element |
Definition |
Example |
| P - Population |
Target group |
"University students," "Manufacturing workers" |
| I - Intervention |
Intervention/exposure |
"Flipped learning," "Remote work" |
| C - Comparison |
Comparator |
"Traditional lectures," "Office work" |
| O - Outcome |
Outcome variable |
"Academic achievement," "Productivity" |
Qualitative Research (PICo):
| Element |
Definition |
| P - Population |
Target group |
| I - Interest |
Phenomenon of interest |
| Co - Context |
Context/environment |
Boolean Search Query Construction
("flipped learning" OR "flipped classroom" OR "inverted classroom")
AND
("motivation" OR "learning motivation" OR "academic motivation" OR "intrinsic motivation")
AND
("higher education" OR "university" OR "college" OR "undergraduate")
Search Query Design Principles
| Principle |
Method |
| Include synonyms |
Connect with OR |
| Cross concepts |
Connect with AND |
| Expanded search |
Use truncation (): learn -> learning, learner, learned |
| Phrase search |
Use quotation marks: "flipped classroom" |
| Limiters |
Year, language, document type filters |
Database-Specific Search Strategies
| Database |
Field |
Characteristics |
| Google Scholar |
General |
Wide coverage, includes grey literature |
| PubMed |
Medicine/Health |
Leverage MeSH terms |
| Scopus |
Multidisciplinary |
Excellent citation analysis |
| Web of Science |
Multidisciplinary |
JCR Impact Factors |
| ERIC |
Education |
Education-specific thesaurus |
| IEEE Xplore |
Engineering/IT |
Includes conference papers |
| RISS |
Korean Academic |
Domestic papers/dissertations |
Inclusion/Exclusion Criteria
### Inclusion Criteria
| Criterion | Details |
|-----------|---------|
| Publication period | 2015-2025 |
| Language | English, Korean |
| Study design | Experimental, quasi-experimental, survey |
| Population | University students |
| Intervention | Flipped learning application |
| Outcome variable | Includes learning motivation measurement |
| Publication type | Peer-reviewed journal |
### Exclusion Criteria
| Criterion | Details | Rationale |
|-----------|---------|-----------|
| Protocol only | No results | No data |
| Conference abstracts | Insufficient detail | Cannot verify methodology |
| K-12 population | Different context | Scope limitation |
Literature Quality Assessment Tools
Quantitative Study Quality Assessment (Simplified)
| Criterion |
High |
Medium |
Low |
| Sample size |
Adequate (power analysis) |
Moderate |
Insufficient |
| Random assignment |
Yes |
Quasi-experimental |
Non-experimental |
| Valid measurement tool |
Validated instrument |
Modified instrument |
Self-developed |
| Statistical method appropriateness |
Appropriate |
Partially appropriate |
Inappropriate |
| Attrition rate |
< 10% |
10-20% |
> 20% |
Qualitative Study Quality Assessment
| Criterion |
Guiding Question |
| Clarity of purpose |
Is the research question clear? |
| Methodological appropriateness |
Is the qualitative method suitable? |
| Research design |
Is the design aligned with the purpose? |
| Data collection |
Is the data sufficiently in-depth? |
| Analytical rigor |
Is the analysis process transparent? |
| Researcher reflexivity |
Has the researcher reflected on their influence? |
Thematic Synthesis
3-Stage Synthesis Process
Stage 1: Coding (Line-by-line coding)
-> Extract key findings from each study as codes
Stage 2: Descriptive Themes
-> Group similar codes to form descriptive themes
Stage 3: Analytical Themes
-> Derive interpretive insights that go beyond descriptive themes
By