This systematic review protocol template follows the fields of PROSPERO, the international register for health-related systematic reviews, so you can copy each answer into the registration form. It is for students, clinicians and review teams writing a first protocol. Each field is explained, and a filled example shows the detail registrars expect.
Write the protocol before you search properly, and register it before data extraction starts [1]. If you are still deciding which kind of review you need, read what is a systematic review and scoping review vs systematic review first.
The protocol template (copy this)
Copy the block into Word, Google Docs or the editor. The groups follow the order of PROSPERO's registration form as relaunched in February 2025 [2].
1. REVIEW TITLE AND TYPE
Review title:
Original language title (if not English):
Review type (e.g. intervention):
Standard or living review:
2. QUESTION
Review question(s) / objectives:
Context and rationale:
Condition or domain being studied:
3. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA
Population: include / exclude
Intervention(s) or exposure(s): include / exclude
Comparator(s) or control(s): include / exclude / none
Context (setting):
Study designs: include / exclude
Main outcome(s), with measures and time points:
Additional outcome(s):
4. SEARCHING
Published studies / unpublished studies:
Databases (name the platform, e.g. MEDLINE via Ovid):
Other methods (reference lists, trial registers, theses, conference proceedings):
Language restrictions:
Date restrictions (from / to):
Search strategy (link or attached PDF):
5. SELECTION PROCESS
Screening method (one person / two people independently / one person checked by another):
Order in which exclusion criteria are applied:
How disagreements are resolved:
6. DATA EXTRACTION
Method (how many people, independently or checked):
Data items to extract:
Will study authors be contacted for missing data?
Individual participant data (IPD) sought? yes / no
7. RISK OF BIAS
Will risk of bias be assessed? Tool(s):
8. REPORTING BIAS
Will risk of bias due to missing results be assessed? Method:
9. CERTAINTY OF EVIDENCE
Will certainty be assessed? Method (e.g. GRADE):
10. DATA SYNTHESIS
Formal synthesis planned? yes / no
Effect measure, model, heterogeneity, sensitivity analyses:
Subgroup analyses:
11. TIMELINE AND STAGE
Start date / anticipated completion date:
Stage reached at submission (piloting, searching, screening, extraction, risk of bias, synthesis):
12. TEAM AND ADMINISTRATION
Review team, guarantor and named contact:
Funding (with grant number):
Conflicts of interest:
Was the protocol peer reviewed?
Countries where reviewers are based:
Keywords:
Plans for publication:
What each field asks for
The fields registrars return most often are the eligibility criteria and the synthesis plan.
| Field | What to write | Common mistake |
|---|---|---|
| Review question | One sentence naming population, intervention or exposure, comparator and outcome | A topic ("napping and shift work") instead of a question |
| Eligibility criteria | Include and exclude lines per element, each testable from a paper | "High-quality studies only": quality is assessed later, not screened for |
| Main outcomes | The measure, the scale and the time point | Listing every outcome as "main" |
| Selection process | Number of screeners at each stage, independence, how conflicts are settled | Leaving out the full-text stage |
| Risk of bias | The named tool for each study design (for example RoB 2, ROBINS-I) | One tool for trials and cohort studies alike |
| Data synthesis | The condition for pooling, the model, and the fallback if pooling is not possible | "We will do a meta-analysis" with no criteria |
| Stage of review | What you have actually started or finished | Ticking data extraction as started, which makes the review ineligible |
The criteria builder in inclusion and exclusion criteria gives example lines for PICO, PCC and SPIDER, and systematic review search strategy covers the searching fields in depth.
A filled example (invented)
This is an invented example for illustration.
- Review title: Planned night-shift naps and alertness in adult shift workers: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
- Review question: In adult shift workers, does a planned nap during the night shift improve alertness at the end of the shift compared with no nap?
- Population: Include adults (18 or over) working night or rotating shifts in any occupation. Exclude students in simulated shifts with no work duties.
- Intervention: Include a planned nap of any length taken during the shift. Exclude naps taken before the shift only.
- Comparator: No nap, or usual breaks without sleep.
- Study designs: Include randomized and non-randomized controlled studies, including crossover trials. Exclude case series and studies with no comparison group.
- Main outcome: Alertness at the end of the shift, measured by the Psychomotor Vigilance Task or the Karolinska Sleepiness Scale.
- Searches: MEDLINE via PubMed, Embase via Ovid, CENTRAL, PsycINFO and Web of Science, from inception, no language limits. Reference lists of included studies and two trial registers.
- Selection: Two reviewers screen titles and abstracts and then full texts independently; disagreements are settled by discussion, then by a third reviewer.
- Data extraction: One reviewer extracts into a piloted form; a second checks every row against the paper.
- Risk of bias: RoB 2 for randomized trials, with the crossover variant for crossover trials; ROBINS-I for non-randomized studies.
- Synthesis: If three or more studies report the same outcome on comparable scales, a random-effects meta-analysis of standardized mean differences; otherwise a structured synthesis without meta-analysis.
- Stage: Pilot searching and screening of 100 records completed; formal screening not started.
PROSPERO rules to check before you register
PROSPERO's own help pages set conditions that decide whether your record will be published [1][3]:
- Register before data extraction. Records for reviews that have already started extraction are not accepted.
- Fill every field in English. Uploaded protocols and search strategies may be in any language, but the fields must be complete; pointing to a protocol instead is not enough.
- Check the review type. PROSPERO does not register scoping reviews at present, nor training exercises or mini reviews done for a course or module. Use OSF Registries or a protocol journal instead.
- Have an ORCID. PROSPERO now asks everyone who creates a record for an ORCID.
For a full protocol published in a journal or on OSF, check it against PRISMA-P 2015, the reporting checklist for protocols [4]. For reporting the finished review, see the PRISMA checklist.
How to fill this template in AI for Research
The Systematic Review workspace holds the question and criteria that a protocol needs, and drafts the protocol from them.
- Open Systematic Review and choose New review. Enter a title and the review question.
- Pick the Type of review (systematic, scoping, rapid, meta-analysis, mapping, qualitative evidence synthesis, realist or living). The framework is set to match: PICO, PCC or SPIDER. You can change it.
- Fill the framework fields, then Include when and Exclude when, one criterion per line.
- On the Protocol tab, choose Draft the protocol with AI (3 credits). The draft uses PROSPERO's main headings, from review title to timeline, and marks anything you have not decided as [To decide: ...].
- Edit it in place, switch between Edit and Preview, and Save. Copy each section into the PROSPERO form.
| Workspace draft heading | PROSPERO form group |
|---|---|
| Review title; Review question | Review title and type; Question |
| Condition or domain; Participants or population; Intervention(s) or exposure(s); Comparator(s) or control(s); Types of study; Context; Main and additional outcome(s) | Eligibility criteria |
| Searches (databases, dates, sample search string) | Searching |
| Data extraction (selection and coding) | Selection process; Data extraction |
| Risk of bias (quality) assessment | Risk of bias |
| Strategy for data synthesis; Analysis of subgroups or subsets | Data synthesis |
| Timeline | Timeline and stage |
The same review then runs the searches, screening and PRISMA reporting: see systematic review software.
What this template and the workspace do not do
- They do not register your review. You submit the record on PROSPERO yourself, under your own account.
- The AI draft does not cover every PROSPERO field. Reporting bias, certainty of evidence, the screening method, language and date limits, team, funding, conflicts of interest and peer review are yours to add.
- The draft is only as good as your criteria. It writes from what you entered; it does not choose your outcomes, tools or synthesis model for you.
- There is no Word or PDF download of this template. Copy it, or paste it into the editor and export from there.
Who it is for
PhD candidates registering a thesis review (AI tools for PhD students), master's students (AI for a master's thesis), and clinicians and guideline teams (AI for medical research).
Learn more
- What is a systematic review: the steps, time and team a review needs.
- Systematic review search strategy: building and documenting the search you describe in the protocol.
- Systematic review vs meta-analysis: writing the synthesis plan.
- Systematic review AI: where AI helps and how to report it.
Sources
- PROSPERO. How to register a systematic review in PROSPERO; Eligibility for inclusion. Centre for Reviews and Dissemination, University of York. https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/help/register and https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/help/eligibility (checked November 2026)
- PROSPERO. About PROSPERO. https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/help/aboutprospero (checked November 2026)
- PROSPERO registration form help text, crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO (checked November 2026)
- Moher D, Shamseer L, Clarke M, et al. Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement. Systematic Reviews. 2015;4:1. https://doi.org/10.1186/2046-4053-4-1
Last updated 2026-11-12