Registering the Review

  • Alison Booth


Good quality systematic reviews of any study type involve good design and careful planning. To minimise the risk of bias, methods should be pre-specified in a protocol with subsequent deviations and changes from what was planned being recorded and explained in the completed review report. Transparency in conduct and reporting enables those using systematic review findings to judge the quality of a review and assess for themselves the potential impact of any deviation from what was planned initially. This chapter presents the case for systematic review protocol registration and introduces PROSPERO, an open register designed specifically for prospective registration of systematic reviews. Considerations when registering a systematic review of reviews are illustrated with examples from PROSPERO.


PROSPERO Protocol Registration Systematic review Umbrella review 


  1. 1.
    Akram Y, Copello A, Moore D. Family based interventions for substance misuse: a systematic review of systematic reviews. PROSPERO. 2014:CRD42014006834.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Arango J, Ellsberg M, Morton M, et al. Interventions to prevent or reduce violence against women and girls: a systematic review of reviews. PROSPERO. 2013:CRD42013004422.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Atkinson G, Batterham A, Ells L, et al. Systematic review of reviews on non-surgical interventions for improving symptoms of obstructive sleep apnoea syndrome in adults. PROSPERO. 2013:CRD42013006052.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Booth A. PROSPERO’s progress and activities 2012/13. Syst Rev. 2013;2:111. doi: 10.1186/2046-4053-2-111.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Booth A, Clarke M, Dooley G, et al. The nuts and bolts of PROSPERO: an international prospective register of systematic reviews. Syst Rev. 2012;1:2. doi: 10.1186/2046-4053-1-2.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Booth A, Clarke M, Dooley G, et al. PROSPERO at one year: an evaluation of its utility. Syst Rev. 2013;2:4. doi: 10.1186/2046-4053-2-4.
  7. 7.
    Booth A, Clarke M, Ghersi D, et al. Establishing a minimum dataset for prospective registration of systematic reviews: an international consultation. PLoS One. 2011;6(11):e27319. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0027319.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Booth A, Clarke M, Ghersi D, et al. An international registry of systematic review protocols. Lancet. 2011;377(9760):108–9. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(10)60903-8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Centre for Reviews and Dissemination. CRD website. 2015. Accessed 27 Mar 2015.
  10. 10.
    Centre for Reviews and Dissemination. Guidance notes for registering a systematic review protocol with PROSPERO. 2013. Accessed 27 Mar 2015.
  11. 11.
    Centre for Reviews and Dissemination. PROSPERO International prospective register of systematic reviews. 2015. Accessed 27 Mar 2015.
  12. 12.
    Centre for Reviews and Dissemination. PROSPERO International prospective register of systematic reviews. Support for prospective registration of systematic reviews. 2015. Accessed 28 Mar 2015.
  13. 13.
    Chan A, Hróbjartsson A, Haahr M, et al. Empirical evidence for selective reporting of outcomes in randomized trials: comparison of protocols to published articles. JAMA. 2004;291(20):2457–65. doi: 10.1001/jama.291.20.2457.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP). CASP checklists. 2014.!casp-tools-checklists/c18f8. Accessed 27 Mar 2015.
  15. 15.
    Dherani M, Buckner S, Pope D, et al. Preventing falls and associated mortality in older people: an umbrella review of systematic reviews. PROSPERO. 2015:CRD42015010571.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Dretzke J, Moore D, Turner A, et al. Systematic review and economic evaluation of the clinical and cost-effectiveness of community based non-invasive ventilation (NIV) in patients with stable end stage COPD with hypercapnic respiratory failure. PROSPERO. 2012:CRD42012003286.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Dwan K, Altman D, Arnaiz J, et al. Systematic review of the empirical evidence of study publication bias and outcome reporting bias. PLoS One. 2008;3(8):e3081. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0003081.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Ioannidis J, Greenland S, Hlatky M, et al. Increasing value and reducing waste in research design, conduct, and analysis. Lancet. 2014;383(9912)166–75. doi:
  19. 19.
    Kirkham J, Altman D, Williamson P. Bias due to changes in specified outcomes during the systematic review process. PLoS One. 2010;5(3):e9810.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Liberati A, Altman D, Tetzlaff J, et al. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration. PLoS Med. 2009;6(6). doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed1000097.
  21. 21.
    Moher D. The problem of duplicate systematic reviews. BMJ. 2013;347. doi:
  22. 22.
    Moher D, Booth A, Stewart L. How to reduce unnecessary duplication: use PROSPERO. BJOG. 2014;121(7):784–6. doi: 10.1111/1471-0528.12657.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, et al. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. PLoS Med. 2009;339:b2535.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Moher D, Tetzlaff J, Tricco A, et al. Epidemiology and reporting characteristics of systematic reviews. PLoS Med. 2007;4(3):e78. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.0040078.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Nicole Nathan N, Wolfenden L, Wiggers J, et al. Effectiveness of school-based interventions on increasing children’s consumption of vegetables and fruit: a review of reviews. PROSPERO. 2014:CRD42014013082.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Oxman A, Guyatt G. Validation of an index of the quality of review articles. J Clin Epidemiol. 1991;44(11):1271–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Page M, Mckenzie J, Kirkham J, et al. Bias due to selective inclusion and reporting of outcomes and analyses in systematic reviews of randomised trials of healthcare interventions. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2014;(10):MR000035. doi: 10.1002/14651858.MR000035.pub2.
  28. 28.
    Plaszewski M, Bettany-Saltikov J. Effects of nonsurgical management for patients with idiopathic scoliosis: an overview of systematic reviews. PROSPERO. 2013:CRD42013003538.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Shea B, Hamel C, Wells G, et al. AMSTAR is a reliable and valid measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews. J Clin Epidemiol. 2009;62(10):1013–20.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Silagy C, Middleton P, Hopewell S. Publishing protocols of systematic reviews: comparing what was done to what was planned. JAMA. 2002;287(21):2831–4. doi: 10.1001/jama.287.21.2831.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Song F, Eastwood A, Gilbody S, et al. Publication and related biases. Health Technol Assess. 2000;4(10):1–115. doi: 10.3310/hta4100.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    The Campbell Collaboration. The Campbell Library. 2015. Accessed 28 Mar 2015.
  33. 33.
    The Cochrane Collaboration. The Cochrane Library. 2015. Accessed 28 Mar 2015.
  34. 34.
    The Joanna Briggs Institute. The Joanna Briggs Institute register of titles. 2015. Accessed 28 Mar 2015.
  35. 35.
    Tricco A, Pham B, Brehaut J, et al. An international survey indicated that unpublished systematic reviews exist. J Clin Epidemiol. 2009;62(6):617–23.e5. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2008.09.014.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Wells G, Cameron C, Klarenbach S, et al. Clinical benefits and harms of atypical antipsychotics for schizophrenia in patients inadequately managed with one or more atypical antipsychotics at recommended doses: a systematic review of reviews and network meta-analysis. PROSPERO. 2013:CRD42013005487.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Centre for Reviews and DisseminationUniversity of YorkHeslington, YorkUK

Personalised recommendations