PROSPERO

PROSPERO

PROSPERO is an international prospective registry for systematic review protocols that aims to reduce redundant reviews, enhance transparency, and limit reporting bias. Established to serve researchers registering protocols in health, social care, and public health, it interacts with institutions, funders, and publishers to improve reproducibility and methodological standards. The platform connects with global initiatives and evidence synthesis networks to align registry practices with evolving norms in research integrity and open science.

Overview

PROSPERO functions as a central repository where investigators submit structured protocols for systematic reviews and meta-analyses prior to study completion. It complements infrastructures such as Cochrane Collaboration, World Health Organization, National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, Campbell Collaboration, and Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality by offering a public record that can be cited in publications and grant applications. The registry’s interface and records are consulted by stakeholders including academics from University of Oxford, Harvard University, Johns Hopkins University, University of Toronto, and policy bodies such as European Commission, National Institutes of Health, Health Canada, and Australian National Health and Medical Research Council. Journals like BMJ, The Lancet, JAMA, PLOS Medicine, and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews often reference registration status in editorial policies.

History and Development

The initiative emerged amid discussions involving researchers linked to University of York, Queen Mary University of London, University College London, and organizations such as National Health Service bodies and the Wellcome Trust. Early advocacy drew on experiences from systematic review centers including Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences and lessons from trial registries like ClinicalTrials.gov and ISRCTN Registry. Development phases included collaborations with University of Edinburgh informatics teams and consultations with standards groups such as Equator Network and methodologists from McMaster University. Over time, governance evolved through interactions with entities like University of Warwick and funders including Medical Research Council and Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, while technical upgrades reflected influences from digital repositories at European Bioinformatics Institute and data stewardship efforts at UK Research and Innovation.

Registration Process and Eligibility

Prospective registrants submit protocols via an online form designed with input from methodologists at University of Bristol, University of Glasgow, and King’s College London. Eligible submissions typically include systematic reviews concerned with human health outcomes, interventions, diagnostics, prognostics, and epidemiology; projects linked to organizations such as National Cancer Institute and European Medicines Agency are commonly registered. The submission workflow captures information about review question, population, interventions or exposures, comparators, outcomes, inclusion criteria, and planned methods—aligning with guidance from Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses contributors and recommendations used by CONSORT-related consortia. Screening for eligibility has involved liaison with editorial teams at Cochrane Library and editorial policies adopted by publishers including Elsevier and Springer Nature.

Data Fields and Record Structure

Registry records contain structured fields for bibliographic details, author affiliations (often universities such as Yale University, Stanford University, Imperial College London), funding sources (e.g., Wellcome Trust, European Research Council), and competing interests. Methodological fields capture search strategies, databases to be searched (including MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO), risk-of-bias tools (such as ROB 2, GRADE), data extraction plans, and synthesis approaches (fixed-effect or random-effects models as informed by conventions used by Cochrane Handbook contributors). The structure supports updates, amendments, and links to resulting publications in journals like Annals of Internal Medicine, BMJ Open Access, and databases such as Scopus and Web of Science.

Governance, Funding, and Policies

Governance arrangements have involved academic hosts, advisory committees, and collaborations with national agencies and charity funders. Institutional stakeholders have included University of York departments, and advisory inputs have come from experts affiliated with University of Manchester, Queen’s University Belfast, and international partners such as WHO Collaborating Centres. Funding sources historically have included governmental research councils and philanthropic organizations; policy frameworks address data availability, confidentiality, intellectual property, and record retention in line with standards promoted by Research Councils UK and Open Researcher and Contributor ID practices. The registry enforces policies on permissible content, eligibility criteria, and record amendments, and coordinates with publishers and registries such as Retraction Watch initiatives when concerns arise.

Usage, Impact, and Criticism

PROSPERO has been widely used to document thousands of protocols, informing systematic review conduct across settings tied to institutions like Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and Public Health England. Studies evaluating registration uptake have involved researchers at Imperial College London and McMaster University, and findings have influenced editorial policies at major journals. Criticisms have centered on scope limitations, delays in record processing, variable completeness of entries, and debates about enforcing updates—points raised in analyses by authors affiliated with University of Sydney and Monash University. Ongoing discussions engage stakeholders from European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases, International Committee of Medical Journal Editors, and research integrity networks to refine registration requirements and enhance interoperability with systems such as Open Science Framework. Category:Research registries