The Updated PROSPERO for Systematic Reviews
Year: 2025
Type: review
Abstract: The International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO), funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research of the United Kingdom, is a free website for anyone doing systematic reviews on health outcomes to register prospectively.[1] The service with its website was launched in 2011 by the UK Centre for Reviews and Dissemination at the University of York.[2] The aim is to promote transparency and reduce bias in systematic reviews by providing a public record of planned review protocols. It has become one of the widely used websites now for systematic review research.[3] The website also provided an opportunity where one could search in PROSPERO about a particular work that is done or underway before finalizing their protocol. The website underwent upgradation after a short period of non-availability of the website in the last week of February 2025. A crude search on 3 continuous days of data showed that an average of 200–300 registrations occur every day, which is a huge number, suggesting the popularity of much-needed systematic review research.[3] NEW UPDATED VERSION The “search” has become relatively more user-friendly, improved, and faster. It has different methods of searching using keywords, registration number, outcomes, named contact, country, and title, and can listed based on registration date or number. One of the most important striking things is the faster processing of forms leading to early registration. For example, our recent protocol was registered within 24 h. The forms now have different sections. The information filled out needs to be saved separately in different subsections. All authors listed in the protocol have to agree by email to be part of the review. Many sections have been provided options to be selected. For example, how the selection of papers is done, or which databases are being searched, with an option of describing it in a box [See Table 1].Table 1: Features of Updated PROSPEROThe new version is similar to the older version and covers all the important aspects required. There is a provision to upload a written protocol also in PDF format, and one has to provide a reason if they are not able to upload. Another feature of this is a new feature where the PROSPERO itself displays so-called “similar reviews” from its system. Then, in the registered protocol, a list of “similar reviews” appears, commenting, “This was judged not to be similar.” Overall, there is less provision to use “we may do,” as it has to be categorically specified. The “PICO” sections are user-friendly again. Search selection and data collection sections have subsections that need to be answered for clarity. Guidance is provided that makes it easy to understand the expectations from the questions while filling out the form. RESPONSE TO CORRESPONDENCES The response from the PROSPERO administrative team to correspondence by email queries or requests has been accommodative and encouraging. When my first PROSPERO registration was not accepted due to not possibly not elaborating some parts of the form, which was realized later, their administrative team was kind enough to give us a chance to make amendments, and within the next few days of the careful amendment, it got registered. DUPLICATIONS AND NOT UPDATED Two or more research questions that appear similar to one other can sometimes get registered. In such cases, it is for the authors to justify how different their work is from other similar ones in the manuscript for publication. Sometimes, if one review looks at the whole group of interventions or globally, the other may restrict to certain specific intervention which is part of the broader intervention or look at only part of the world. This is another debatable issue, but a particular group is looking at a particular intervention, for example, cognitive behavioral therapy, but another review protocol is on psychological interventions. Many protocols are not updated, some even after 4–5 years, which may hinder the planning of similar research questions. PEER REVIEW OF REPORT During peer review process of final systematic review manuscript, the peer reviewers will have access to the PROSPERO protocol in the website, which also publishes authors' names and affiliations may compromise blinding. The peer reviewers need to see the prospectively registered protocol, so they can verify whether the protocol has been duly followed or not. If not, if the authors have provided that information either as deviation from protocol or amendments made in the protocol with reasons. Since the PROSPERO protocol displays an obvious list of authors and countries, it does compromise anonymity and allows room for bias. It does not matter whether the PROSPERO registered ID is provided or not, which can be accessed online. Editors will experience this problem, and obviously, double-blinding of the peer review process is not possible. This hopefully is understood as logic, and consensus exists among the research and the editors’ fraternity. Whether an effort should be made to blind the authors’ names and countries is something for debate. CONCLUSION PROSPERO provides a generous platform with comprehensive protocol information and is a well-maintained website that is accessible globally for the public view, thus supporting the initial process of the systematic reviews. The wealth of information from similar previously registered protocols is available as guidance or tips in preparing new protocols. One has to experience to get the feel of the process. There is a need for follow-up correspondences or some kind of system to indicate the delay in updating the records by the registered authors. The platform is not only a registry but also serves as a source of databases and information.
Source: Journal of Psychiatry Spectrum
Author: Vijaykumar Harbishettar
Language: English
Subfield: Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty
Field: Decision Sciences
Domain: Social Sciences
Open Access status: diamond
OpenAlex ID: W4408655958