Where to Prospectively Register a Systematic Review

Overview

Journal Syst Rev

Publisher Biomed Central

Date 2022 Jan 9

PMID 34998432

Citations 38

Authors

Dawid Pieper

Tanja Rombey

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Background: Prospective registration aims to reduce bias in the conduct and reporting of research and to increase transparency. In addition, prospective registration of systematic reviews is argued to help preventing unintended duplication, thereby reducing research waste. PROSPERO was launched in 2011 as the first prospective register for systematic reviews. While it has long been the only option to prospectively register systematic reviews, recently there have been new developments. Our aim was to identify and characterize current options to prospectively register a systematic review to assist review authors in choosing a suitable register.

Methods: To identify systematic review registers, we independently performed internet searches in January 2021 using keywords related to systematic reviews and prospective registration. "Registration" was defined as the process of entering information about a planned systematic review into a database before starting the systematic review process. We collected data on the characteristics of the identified registries and contacted the responsible party of each register for verification of the data related to their registry.

Results: Overall, we identified five options to prospectively register a systematic review: PROSPERO, the Registry of Systematic Reviews/Meta-Analyses in Research Registry, and INPLASY, which are specific to systematic reviews, and the Open Science Framework Registries and protocols.io, which represent generic registers open to any study type. Detailed information on each register is presented in tables in the main text. Regarding the systematic-review-specific registries, authors have to trade-off between the costs of registration and the processing time of their registration record. All registers provide an option to search for systematic reviews already registered in the register. However, it is unclear how useful these search functions are.

Conclusion: Authors can prospectively register their systematic review in five registries, which come with different characteristics and features. The research community should discuss fair and sustainable financing models for registers that are not operated by for-profit organizations.

Citing Articles

Systematic review meta-analysis protocol preparation and registration - A narrative review.

Maurya I, Garg R Indian J Anaesth. 2025; 69(1):132-137.

PMID: 40046710 PMC: 11878364. DOI: 10.4103/ija.ija_1165_24.

Association Between Frailty and Mortality, Falls and Hospitalisation Among Patients Undergoing Dialysis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

He W, Zhang X, Zhang Y, Gai W, Wu X, Tao Y Nurs Open. 2025; 12(2):e70150.

PMID: 39899271 PMC: 11789586. DOI: 10.1002/nop2.70150.

How to Conduct High-Quality Systematic Review and Meta-analysis in Radiology and Interventional Radiology.

Shaw M, Sharma S Indian J Radiol Imaging. 2025; 35(Suppl 1):S128-S135.

PMID: 39802713 PMC: 11717467. DOI: 10.1055/s-0044-1793811.

Suicidal Ideation in Adolescents and Young Adults: The Role of Defeat, Entrapment, and Depressive Symptoms-From a Systematic Review to a Tentative Theoretical Model.

Huertes-Del Arco A, Izquierdo-Sotorrio E, Carrasco M, Caro-Canizares I, Holgado-Tello F Behav Sci (Basel). 2025; 14(12.

PMID: 39767286 PMC: 11673934. DOI: 10.3390/bs14121145.

Reliability and reproducibility of systematic reviews informing the 2020-2025 Dietary Guidelines for Americans: a pilot study.

Bodnaruc A, Khan H, Shaver N, Bennett A, Wong Y, Gracey C Am J Clin Nutr. 2025; 121(1):111-124.

PMID: 39755432 PMC: 11747194. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajcnut.2024.10.013.

References

Puljak L . Delays in publishing systematic review registrations in PROSPERO are hindering transparency and may lead to research waste. BMJ Evid Based Med. 2020; 26(6):e4. DOI: 10.1136/bmjebm-2020-111474. View

Booth A, Clarke M, Dooley G, Ghersi D, Moher D, Petticrew M . The nuts and bolts of PROSPERO: an international prospective register of systematic reviews. Syst Rev. 2012; 1:2. PMC: 3348673. DOI: 10.1186/2046-4053-1-2. View

Ioannidis J . The Mass Production of Redundant, Misleading, and Conflicted Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses. Milbank Q. 2016; 94(3):485-514. PMC: 5020151. DOI: 10.1111/1468-0009.12210. View

Rombey T, Puljak L, Allers K, Ruano J, Pieper D . Inconsistent views among systematic review authors toward publishing protocols as peer-reviewed articles: an international survey. J Clin Epidemiol. 2020; 123:9-17. DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2020.03.010. View

Stewart L, Moher D, Shekelle P . Why prospective registration of systematic reviews makes sense. Syst Rev. 2012; 1:7. PMC: 3369816. DOI: 10.1186/2046-4053-1-7. View

Agha R, Rosin D . The Research Registry – answering the call to register every research study involving human participants. Int J Surg. 2015; 16(Pt A):113-115. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijsu.2015.03.001. View

Nosek B, Ebersole C, DeHaven A, Mellor D . The preregistration revolution. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2018; 115(11):2600-2606. PMC: 5856500. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1708274114. View

Fowler A, Dowlut N, Limb R, Baldacchino M, Sonagara V, George N . Analysis of the first 2645 registrations at the research registry: A global repository for all study types involving human participants. Int J Surg. 2018; 60:231-235. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijsu.2018.10.036. View

. World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki: ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects. JAMA. 2013; 310(20):2191-4. DOI: 10.1001/jama.2013.281053. View

10.

Schneider J, Backfisch I, Lachner A . Facilitating open science practices for research syntheses: PreregRS guides preregistration. Res Synth Methods. 2021; 13(2):284-289. DOI: 10.1002/jrsm.1540. View

11.

Davies S . The importance of PROSPERO to the National Institute for Health Research. Syst Rev. 2012; 1:5. PMC: 3348668. DOI: 10.1186/2046-4053-1-5. View

12.

Booth A, Clarke M, Ghersi D, Moher D, Petticrew M, Stewart L . Establishing a minimum dataset for prospective registration of systematic reviews: an international consultation. PLoS One. 2011; 6(11):e27319. PMC: 3217945. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0027319. View

13.

Solla F, Bertoncelli C, Rampal V . Does the PROSPERO registration prevent double review on the same topic?. BMJ Evid Based Med. 2020; 26(3):140. DOI: 10.1136/bmjebm-2020-111361. View

14.

Riaz I, Khan M, Riaz H, Goldberg R . Disorganized Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses: Time to Systematize the Conduct and Publication of These Study Overviews?. Am J Med. 2015; 129(3):339.e11-8. DOI: 10.1016/j.amjmed.2015.10.009. View

15.

Rombey T, Doni K, Hoffmann F, Pieper D, Allers K . More systematic reviews were registered in PROSPERO each year, but few records' status was up-to-date. J Clin Epidemiol. 2019; 117:60-67. DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2019.09.026. View

16.

Page M, Shamseer L, Tricco A . Registration of systematic reviews in PROSPERO: 30,000 records and counting. Syst Rev. 2018; 7(1):32. PMC: 5819709. DOI: 10.1186/s13643-018-0699-4. View

17.

Agha R, Fowler A, Limb C, Al Omran Y, Sagoo H, Koshy K . The First 500 Registrations to the Research Registry: Advancing Registration of Under-Registered Study Types. Front Surg. 2016; 3:50. PMC: 5026158. DOI: 10.3389/fsurg.2016.00050. View

18.

. Best practice in systematic reviews: the importance of protocols and registration. PLoS Med. 2011; 8(2):e1001009. PMC: 3042995. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1001009. View

19.

Booth A, Clarke M, Ghersi D, Moher D, Petticrew M, Stewart L . An international registry of systematic-review protocols. Lancet. 2010; 377(9760):108-9. DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(10)60903-8. View

20.

Bakker M, Veldkamp C, van Assen M, Crompvoets E, Ong H, Nosek B . Ensuring the quality and specificity of preregistrations. PLoS Biol. 2020; 18(12):e3000937. PMC: 7725296. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pbio.3000937. View