Format your systematic review protocol for PROSPERO submission. Fill in the guided form, validate required fields, and copy the formatted output directly into the PROSPERO registration portal.
Fill in each section to match the PROSPERO registration fields. Required fields are marked with an asterisk (*). When complete, use "Copy All" to copy the formatted output ready to paste into the PROSPERO online form, or copy individual sections as needed.
Missing required fields:
Only if the title above is a translation
=== REVIEW DETAILS === === TEAM === === REVIEW QUESTION === === ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA === === METHODS === === OTHER === --- Formatted with Research Gold PROSPERO Registration Tool Date: 3/7/2026
Copy this formatted output and paste it into the PROSPERO online registration form at crd.york.ac.uk/prospero. Fields left blank will be omitted from the output.
Work through each section, starting with your review title and team details. Required fields are marked with an asterisk.
Enter your review question in PICO format, list databases to be searched, and specify your eligibility criteria.
Select your risk of bias tool, describe your data synthesis strategy, and outline any planned subgroup analyses.
Use 'Copy All' to get the formatted output, then paste it into the PROSPERO online registration form.
Prospective registration is most valuable when done before you begin extracting data. PROSPERO flags late registrations, which can reduce the methodological credibility of your review. Aim to register once your protocol is finalized but before formal screening begins.
Vague protocols undermine the purpose of registration. Clearly define your PICO elements, specify exact databases and date limits for searching, name the risk of bias tool you will use, and describe your statistical approach in enough detail that another team could replicate your methods.
While PROSPERO accepts partial registrations, completing all fields strengthens your protocol. Key fields beyond the minimum include search strategy, data extraction methods, risk of bias assessment, data synthesis approach, and subgroup analyses. Complete registrations also make your record more discoverable.
Protocol deviations are common and acceptable when justified. PROSPERO tracks all amendments with date stamps, creating a transparent record. If you need to modify your protocol during the review, update your PROSPERO record and justify the change in your final manuscript.
A PROSPERO registration tool helps researchers structure and format their systematic review protocol for submission to the international prospective register maintained by the Centre for Reviews and Dissemination (CRD) at the University of York. PROSPERO was established in 2011 to address a long-standing problem in evidence synthesis: without a public record of planned reviews, multiple teams might unknowingly duplicate the same work, and authors could selectively modify their methods after seeing the results — a form of outcome reporting bias that undermines the credibility of the evidence. By requiring prospective registration, PROSPERO creates a time-stamped audit trail that distinguishes pre-specified methods from post-hoc changes, directly supporting the transparency principles embedded in PRISMA 2020 (Page et al., 2021). Alternative registration platforms have emerged to complement PROSPERO: the Open Science Framework (OSF) accepts preregistrations for any study type including systematic reviews, and INPLASY (International Platform of Registered Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols) provides a newer database with DOI assignment and rapid registration processing, broadening access to prospective protocol registration beyond PROSPERO's scope.
The value of a systematic review protocol template extends beyond administrative compliance. A well-constructed protocol forces the review team to make critical methodological decisions before data collection begins: defining the PICO question with precision, specifying the databases and date limits for searching, selecting the risk of bias assessment instrument, and committing to a data synthesis strategy. Each of these decisions carries downstream consequences. The PRISMA-P (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols) checklist by Moher et al. (2015) provides a 17-item framework specifically for protocol reporting, and aligning your PROSPERO registration with PRISMA-P items ensures that the protocol meets the reporting standards expected by journals and peer reviewers. For instance, choosing between a random-effects and fixed-effect model, or between RoB 2 and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale, shapes the interpretation of results. Our PICO framework builder assists with the first step by structuring the population, intervention, comparator, and outcome elements into a searchable question, while the RoB 2 assessment tool provides the domain-level quality ratings that the protocol should reference.
The PROSPERO format helper addresses a practical friction point: PROSPERO's online form contains over 20 fields organized across multiple screens, and the interface does not allow saving partial entries as drafts in all cases. By composing the protocol offline with guidance on each field, researchers can iterate with co-authors, obtain supervisory feedback, and refine their methods before committing to the registration portal. Key fields include the anticipated start and completion dates (which establish the prospective nature of the registration), the detailed search strategy (which reviewers and journal editors will later compare against the reported methods), and the planned approach to assessing publication bias — a step that tools like funnel plots and Egger's test formalize but that must be pre-specified to carry interpretive weight.
PROSPERO registration also intersects with journal submission requirements. The Cochrane Collaboration requires protocol registration for all Cochrane Reviews. Major journals including The Lancet, BMJ, and JAMA either require or strongly encourage a PROSPERO registration number at submission, and the PRISMA 2020 checklist dedicates an item to reporting the registration ID and where the protocol can be accessed. Studies examining the impact of registration have found that registered reviews are associated with higher methodological quality scores and lower risk of selective outcome reporting (Sideri et al., 2018). For teams planning quantitative synthesis, the protocol should describe the intended statistical methods in enough detail that another group could replicate the analysis — including the effect size metric, the pooling model, the heterogeneity statistics to be reported, and any planned subgroup or sensitivity analyses. Our effect size calculator and heterogeneity calculator can help teams plan these analytical steps during the protocol development phase.
Finally, protocol amendments are a normal and expected part of the systematic review process. PROSPERO tracks every modification with a date stamp, creating a version history that reviewers, peer reviewers, and readers can inspect. The Cochrane Handbook (Higgins et al., 2023) recommends documenting the rationale for each amendment and classifying changes as minor (e.g., adding a database) or major (e.g., changing the primary outcome). For living systematic reviews, where the evidence base is updated continuously, protocol amendments may include planned periodic search updates, revised inclusion criteria, and iterative analytical approaches — PROSPERO supports these ongoing modifications through its version control system, and documenting each update cycle maintains the audit trail that distinguishes living reviews from standard updates. Transparent amendment tracking transforms protocol deviations from a methodological weakness into a demonstration of scholarly rigor — it shows that the team adapted thoughtfully to unforeseen challenges while maintaining accountability to the original plan.
PROSPERO is an international prospective register of systematic reviews managed by the Centre for Reviews and Dissemination (CRD) at the University of York. Registering your review protocol on PROSPERO before you begin data extraction helps reduce duplication, promotes transparency, and allows others to see what reviews are underway. Registration is free and covers systematic reviews of health-related outcomes, including those with a health promotion, public health, education, social care, welfare, crime, justice, or international development focus.
You should register your protocol before beginning formal data extraction. PROSPERO accepts registrations at any point from preliminary searches through to the data extraction stage. Registrations submitted after data extraction has begun are flagged, which may reduce the credibility advantage of prospective registration. Ideally, register after you have finalized your review question, search strategy, and eligibility criteria but before screening studies.
The minimum required fields include the review title, named contact details, review question, and primary outcome(s). However, providing comprehensive information across all fields significantly strengthens your registration. Key fields include the search strategy, eligibility criteria (PICOS), risk of bias assessment approach, and data synthesis methods. PROSPERO will not reject incomplete registrations but will prompt you to fill in as many fields as possible.
Yes. PROSPERO allows you to amend your registration at any time. Any changes are recorded and date-stamped, creating a transparent audit trail of protocol modifications. This is important for accountability: readers can see what was planned originally and what was changed during the review process. Major amendments should be justified in both the PROSPERO record and your final manuscript.
Registration is not universally mandatory, but it is strongly recommended and increasingly expected by journals. Many leading journals (including BMJ, The Lancet, JAMA, and Cochrane) require or strongly encourage prospective registration. PRISMA 2020 also asks authors to report the registration number and where the protocol was registered. Registering your review demonstrates methodological rigor and can strengthen the peer review process.
Register before beginning the formal screening of search results. PROSPERO accepts registrations at any point before data extraction begins, but earlier registration is better — it demonstrates that your methods were planned a priori. Many journals now require PROSPERO registration, and submitting a review without it may lead to desk rejection. Registration is free and typically reviewed within 2–5 business days.
PROSPERO is a registration (brief, structured record of your planned methods) while a protocol paper is a peer-reviewed publication with detailed methodology. PROSPERO entries are typically 2–3 pages of structured fields. Protocol papers (e.g., published in Systematic Reviews or BMJ Open) are full manuscripts following the PRISMA-P checklist. Both serve transparency, but only protocol papers undergo formal peer review.
Yes. PROSPERO allows amendments at any stage. Each change is date-stamped and the original registration is preserved, creating a transparent audit trail. Common amendments include adding databases, refining eligibility criteria, or changing the statistical analysis plan. The Cochrane Handbook requires documenting all protocol deviations in the final review, whether registered on PROSPERO or published as a protocol paper.
Structure your review question before registration using our PICO framework builder, which also supports PECO and SPIDER frameworks for different study types. Define your study selection rules with the eligibility criteria builder, and construct comprehensive database queries using our search strategy construction tool.
Our methodologists can develop your full review protocol, register it on PROSPERO, and guide you through every stage from search strategy to final reporting.