Published | Last updated
PROSPERO registration is the step that turns your protocol into a time-stamped public record. This guide sets out who can register, how the form works, what the evidence says about registered reviews, and a worked example in which a real registered record is compared with its published paper. It uses PROSPERO’s own guidance and live pages, checked on 27 October 2026.
On this page: What it is · Eligibility · Why register · Steps · Key fields · After registering · Worked example · Common mistake · FAQ
What PROSPERO is and what registration gives you
PROSPERO is an international database of prospectively registered systematic reviews in health and social care. It is developed and managed by the Centre for Reviews and Dissemination at the University of York and funded by the UK’s National Institute for Health and Care Research [1,2]. Its stated aims are to list reviews at inception, avoid unplanned duplication, and let readers compare the final review with what was planned, which reduces the risk of bias [2,3].
The home page currently reports records of over 517,000 prospectively registered reviews, and a news item says PROSPERO passed 500,000 records on 21 September 2026 (Figure 1) [1].
Registration is free. In return, you are accountable for the accuracy of the record and for keeping it updated [2].
Who can register on PROSPERO? Eligibility
A review needs a health-related outcome and must be a true systematic review. The table below follows PROSPERO’s guidance, and Figure 2 shows the requirements page [2].
| PROSPERO accepts | PROSPERO does not accept |
|---|---|
| Interventions, including qualitative and individual participant data reviews | Scoping reviews |
| Diagnostic accuracy | Literature reviews that use a systematic search |
| Prognostic factors and prevention | Reviews without an outcome of clear relevance to human health |
| Epidemiological reviews relevant to health and social care | Reviews assessing sports performance as an outcome |
| Public health and service delivery | Methodological reviews that assess ONLY the quality of reporting |
| Methodological reviews (with a health outcome) | Systematic critical appraisals; animal-only (separate section) and in-vitro-only reviews |
Three rules catch people out. First, submissions must be in English, though search strategies and attached protocols may be in any language. Second, Cochrane protocols are uploaded automatically, so do not register them separately. Third, reviews of animal studies go in the animal studies section, and a review that includes both humans and animals needs two linked records (Figure 3) [2].
If you are not sure a design qualifies, PROSPERO invites you to email the team before you start. A scoping review can still be registered on another platform such as the Open Science Framework, but not on PROSPERO.
Why register? What the evidence shows
Registering earns trust, and it also marks what you planned so readers can spot later changes [2,3]. There is also evidence that registered reviews are better conducted and reported, with an important caution.
Ge and colleagues compared three groups of 50 systematic reviews of randomised trials from 2015: registered non-Cochrane reviews, Cochrane reviews and non-registered reviews. Registered reviews scored 4.82 points higher on R-AMSTAR (methodological quality) and 1.47 points higher on PRISMA (reporting quality) than non-registered reviews (Figure 4) [4]. Removing the registration item from R-AMSTAR left a difference of 4.34, so the gap is not just the registration box being ticked [4].
Read this as an association. Teams that register may already be more careful, so registration is a marker of good practice, not a cause of it [4].
How to register on PROSPERO, step by step
| Step | What to do | Source detail |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Check eligibility and search PROSPERO for a duplicate | The form asks you to confirm the review is eligible and sufficiently different from any other registered review. |
| 2 | Create an account and open “Register a review” | Use the Join link, then Sign in. The form has 22 required and 18 optional fields. |
| 3 | Fill the form; save as you go | Changes save when you leave a field. Most registrants finish in 60 minutes or less. |
| 4 | Name every author and get approval | The record is not published until all named review team members have approved its accuracy. |
| 5 | Submit and wait for the check | The record is locked while administrators check it. They aim to respond within five working days. |
| 6 | Keep the record current | Edit with Revision Notes, update the stage, and add the publication details when the review is out. |
The form accepts a link to a protocol, but PROSPERO states that giving access to a protocol is not a substitute for entering data into the required fields [2]. Read the in-form help for each field before you type.
If your submission is rejected, the record is locked and you must email the PROSPERO team to regain access [2]. That is a good reason to check eligibility, and the stage of your review, before you press Submit.
The fields that matter most
Most of the 22 required fields are straightforward. These six decide whether your record can be trusted later [2].
| Field | What PROSPERO asks for | Practical tip |
|---|---|---|
| Review title | An English title, with the original-language title in its own field if needed | Put the review type and population in the title so searchers can find it. |
| Start date | Any point after the protocol is complete but before formal screening begins | Pick a date you can defend; it is public and edits are logged. |
| Completion date | A realistic date if none is contractually agreed | PROSPERO emails the named contact on this date to ask for an update. |
| Stage of review | Tick Started and Completed boxes, add free text | Reviews past the completion of data extraction are not eligible. |
| Searches | Sources, search dates and any restrictions such as language or publication period | Say “no limits” only if that is true; the published paper must match. |
| Methods | Selection, data extraction, risk of bias and synthesis, including planned subgroups | Name the tool (for example RoB 2) rather than “risk of bias will be assessed”. |
The start date definition matters. A protocol counts as complete when a funder approves it, peer review is finished, it is published, or the authors decide it is complete and expect no major design changes [2]. Registering earlier than that is wasteful, and the guidance warns that registering reviews that are never performed may discredit the research team [2].
After you register: amendments and updates
A published record can be edited at any time. Sign in, go to My PROSPERO records, change the field and add a brief reason in Revision Notes. The original submission stays on the register and each edit is added to the audit trail, with earlier versions reachable from dated links [2].
When the review is done, update the stage and add the publication details. To register an update of a completed review, open the original record and follow the update route, then link the old and new reviews in the form [2]. Records stay on PROSPERO permanently.
Plan your reporting at the same time. PRISMA 2020 asks authors to report registration and protocol details, and PRISMA-P lists the items a full protocol should cover [7,8]. See our guide to the PRISMA flow chart for the next reporting step.
Worked example: a real record compared with its paper
Here is how to read a registration against a publication. The review of the ABCDE/ABCDEF care bundle in intensive care by Sosnowski and colleagues quotes registration number CRD42019126407 in its abstract [5]. The record shows a first submission on 27 February 2019, registration on 26 March 2019, a start date of 11 March 2019 and a planned end date of 25 August 2019 [6]. The table compares what was registered with what was published.
| Item | Registered record (version 1.0, 26 March 2019) | Published paper (Int J Nurs Stud, November 2022) |
|---|---|---|
| Intervention | “parts or the entirety” of the ABCDE/ABCDEF bundle | Studies that described the bundle “in its entirety” |
| Search dates | No date limitations | 2000 to December 2021 |
| Planned end date | 25 August 2019 | Paper published 29 November 2022 |
| Versions on the register | Version 1.0 only | Registration number quoted in the abstract |
Three points for your own review. First, narrowing a question after registration is not misconduct: the published paper may have good reasons for requiring the bundle “in its entirety”, and the record is only the plan. Second, the register shows version 1.0 only, so a reader cannot see when or why the plan changed, which is exactly what Revision Notes are for [2,6]. Third, the published search period (2000 to December 2021) runs well past the planned end date, a reminder to revise your completion date when timelines slip.
The lesson is simple: write the registration so it matches what you will do, and if the plan changes, change the record on the day it changes, with a reason.
Pre-submission checklist
- The review is a systematic review with a health-related outcome, not a scoping review or a literature review.
- Your protocol is complete, and you have the time or funding to finish the review.
- You searched PROSPERO for a registered review on the same question.
- Screening and data extraction have not been completed.
- Every required field is filled in, in English, and every named author has approved the content.
- Search sources, dates and restrictions match what you will actually do.
Free tools for your review
These Editverse tools are free and need no signup.
- GraphPro: build publication-ready charts, 25 types, with built-in t-test, ANOVA, correlation, and chi-square p-values. Free, no signup.
- StatPro: free statistical calculators and a test-selector tool covering group comparisons, categorical outcomes, time-to-event analysis, and diagnostic accuracy.
- Flowchart Pro: generate PRISMA 2020, PRISMA-ScR, CONSORT, STROBE, STARD, MOOSE, and ARRIVE flow diagrams directly in your browser.
Related Editverse guides
Get your protocol registered with confidence
If you want a second pair of hands on the protocol or the whole review, these are the two services built for it.
Want a protocol that is ready to register? We draft your PROSPERO-ready systematic review protocol: PICO framework, eligibility criteria, a search strategy draft, methodology planning and risk of bias tool selection.
Want the whole review done? PRISMA-compliant systematic review for up to 15 included articles: protocol development, a search across 5+ databases, dual screening and quality assessment.
PROSPERO registration FAQ
When should I register my systematic review on PROSPERO?
After your protocol is complete and before screening and data extraction. PROSPERO’s guidance says not to register too early, because the protocol should be complete and the resources to finish the review should be in place. It also says reviews that have already completed data extraction are not eligible [2].
Is PROSPERO registration free?
Yes. Registration is free of charge. In return, registrants are accountable for the accuracy of what they submit and for keeping the record updated [2].
How long does PROSPERO take to approve a registration?
PROSPERO says it endeavours to give an update within five working days of submission. Your record is locked for editing during this administrative check, and it can be approved, returned for clarification or rejected [2].
Which reviews are not accepted by PROSPERO?
Scoping reviews, literature reviews that use a systematic search, reviews without an outcome of clear relevance to human health, reviews assessing sports performance as an outcome, methodological reviews that assess only the quality of reporting, and systematic critical appraisals. Reviews of animal studies only go in the animal studies section, and in-vitro-only reviews are not eligible [2].
Can I change my PROSPERO record after it is published?
Yes. Sign in, open My PROSPERO records, edit the record and give a short reason in the Revision Notes. Every edit is kept in the audit trail, and earlier versions stay accessible through dated links [2].
Does PROSPERO registration improve review quality?
Registered reviews score higher on average, but the evidence is observational. In a meta-epidemiological study of 150 systematic reviews of randomised trials, registered non-Cochrane reviews scored 4.82 points higher on R-AMSTAR than non-registered reviews (95% CI 3.70 to 5.94) [4]. Registration alone does not cause good methods.
What is the difference between PROSPERO and a PRISMA-P protocol?
PROSPERO is a public register that holds the key fields of your protocol with a registration number. PRISMA-P is a checklist of items a full protocol should report [7]. Many teams do both: write a PRISMA-P protocol, then enter its key content in PROSPERO.
My review includes both human and animal studies. How do I register it?
Submit two separate protocols, one for each population type, and note in each record that the two are linked, for example in the additional information field [2].
Conclusion
PROSPERO registration is free, public and fast to complete, but only useful if it is accurate, timely and kept up to date. Confirm eligibility, finish the protocol, register before screening and extraction, and log every change with a reason. For a protocol that is ready to register, see our protocol development service.
References
- PROSPERO. International prospective register of systematic reviews: home page, Centre for Reviews and Dissemination, University of York (accessed 27 October 2026). crd.york.ac.uk/prospero
- PROSPERO. Registering a review on PROSPERO: guidance notes, 14-page PDF (file dated March 2023; read 27 October 2026). Requirements page and FAQ captured 27 October 2026. crd.york.ac.uk/prospero
- Booth A, Clarke M, Ghersi D, Moher D, Petticrew M, Stewart L (2011). An international registry of systematic-review protocols. Lancet 377(9760):108-109. 10.1016/s0140-6736(10)60903-8
- Ge L, Tian JH, Li YN, et al. (2018). Association between prospective registration and overall reporting and methodological quality of systematic reviews: a meta-epidemiological study. J Clin Epidemiol 93:45-55. 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2017.10.012
- Sosnowski K, Lin F, Chaboyer W, Ranse K, Heffernan A, Mitchell M (2022). The effect of the ABCDE/ABCDEF bundle on delirium, functional outcomes, and quality of life in critically ill patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Nurs Stud 138:104410. 10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2022.104410
- PROSPERO record CRD42019126407, version 1.0 published 26 March 2019 (accessed 27 October 2026). crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/view/CRD42019126407
- Shamseer L, Moher D, Clarke M, et al. (2015). Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015: elaboration and explanation. BMJ 349:g7647. 10.1136/bmj.g7647
- Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, et al. (2021). The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ 372:n71. 10.1136/bmj.n71