STAGE 2 · INTERACTIVE TOOL
Enter verified counts to build a review flow diagram. The builder checks the arithmetic and creates a two-column flow diagram like the example, including source names and counts.
01 · DATA ENTRY
Enter zero where a category does not apply. Totals in the diagram are calculated automatically.
02 · LIVE PREVIEW
Enter your verified counts to update the diagram.
03 · LEARN FROM PUBLISHED REVIEWS
Choose an article to view a teaching reconstruction generated with this builder. The examples are read-only and will not replace your own counts. Check the source figure and notes, especially where the article reports inconsistent values.
REPORTED FLOW · COUNTS RECONCILE
Junaidi et al. (2025) · Cogent Social Sciences, 11(1), Article 2492833
Count check: 1,598 identified − 487 removed before screening = 1,111 screened; 1,111 − 1,057 excluded = 54 included. The 487 pre-screening removals combine 328 outside the year range, 150 duplicates and 9 inaccessible or corrupted records.
RECONSTRUCTION FROM ARTICLE NARRATIVE
Yalwa et al. (2026) · International Journal of Advanced Computer Science and Applications, 17(5)
Read with care: the article narrative reports 104 full texts assessed and 60 retained, so 44 exclusions are calculated for this builder diagram (104 − 60); the article does not report that 44 as a single count. Figure 1 instead shows 72 assessed, 32 excluded for no empirical evidence and 12 for insufficient methodology, which does not reconcile with the stated 60 included. Check the source PDF before citing these stages.
REPORTED COUNTS · GROUPED BY BUILDER STAGE
Tafa et al. (2025) · IEEE Access, 13, 72486–72505
Mapping note: the 571 records filtered before quality assessment are grouped in the builder’s title/abstract exclusion box because its input form does not represent every intermediate filter separately. The paper reports 108 duplicates, 359 outside the year range and 296 non-journal papers before this group; 200 reached quality assessment, 131 were excluded, and 69 remained.
ARITHMETIC RECONSTRUCTION · INFERRED GAP MARKED
Adeyemo et al. (2026) · International Journal of Advanced Computer Science and Applications, 17(3), 564–576
Do not treat the inferred value as reported data: the paper reports 2,816 records and 671 duplicates, leaving 2,145; its figure says 671 records screened and lists 417 screening exclusions, which leads to 254 full texts. The builder therefore labels the unexplained 1,474-record gap as inferred, not reported to reproduce the figure’s later counts. The reported full-text exclusions (176 + 21 = 197) reconcile with 57 included.
DATABASE FLOW · OTHER-METHOD RECORDS SHOWN SEPARATELY
Junaidi et al. (2025) · IEEE Access, 13, 137464–137490
Other-method note: this builder displays the 71 studies from the database flow. The article adds 4 studies through snowballing, giving 75 in the methods/results. Snowballing is not represented in this database/register-only builder. The article abstract also reports 76, so verify the final figure in the source PDF.
RECONSTRUCTION · REPORTING DISCREPANCIES TO AUDIT
Li, Othman, Chen, & Yusuf (2024) · International Journal of Communication Networks and Distributed Systems, 30(3), 264–312
Audit the source before using these counts. Table 3 sums to 1,272 using Wiley = 34; Figure 2 shows Wiley = 25 while retaining 1,272 (the displayed source counts sum to 1,263). The reconstruction groups 582 pre-screening removals, then uses 460 screening exclusions, 152 QA-score exclusions and 19 final-topic exclusions to reproduce 59 included. Figure 2 labels 78 as assessed for quality assessment, while the abstract and results report 63 included studies. These reported figures do not form one unambiguous flow. Section 2.5 also says scores greater than 3 were included, while Figure 2 says scores below 3 were excluded. Treat the diagram above as a teaching reconstruction; do not present it as the article’s reported PRISMA figure.
Diagrams are generated from article counts using the same PRISMA Flow Diagram Builder above. They are teaching reconstructions, not replacements for the articles’ own figures or official PRISMA templates. Open each PDF to verify the source context.
For publication, compare this draft with the official PRISMA 2020 flow diagram templates. This page is for new reviews using databases and registers.