A protocol outlines the plan or set of steps to be followed. A review protocol should describe the rationale for the review, the methods that will be used to locate, select and critically appraise studies, and to analyse and synthesise data.
The registration of a protocol is designed to provide transparency and facilitate the specification of criteria and methods at the outset, rather than influenced by study findings. PRISMA-P is a useful template for developing a systematic review protocol.
Making protocols publicly available can also reduce duplication of effort. For systematic reviews, this is usually done in a registry (such as Prospero) or publishing it in a dedicated journal (such as Systematic Reviews) during the planning stages of the review.
Scoping review protocols are often loaded to OSF Registries and there is a template for writing a scoping review protocol available in OSF: Lely et. al. (2023). (The protocol template document has a template with key sections, and the protocol guidance document provides instruction for each section along with links to examples). Another protocol template is available from JBI.
For other types of reviews, you may consider making a protocol available via OSF Registries or Bridges (the Monash University Repository). Pieper and Rombey (2022) have identified further options for prospectively registering protocols.
If you conduct a systematic review for an organisation that commissions or sponsors reviews, such as Cochrane, you will need to adhere to their guidelines and standards. Some journals may also have particular requirements. For any review you are doing, we recommend that you follow a prescribed process.
Organisations that have developed manuals for systematic reviews include:
If you are doing a systematic review for publication, it is also worthwhile looking at SRs in the journals that you are considering submitting to. Different publications may have different standards as to the number of reviewers, the choice of databases searched, the documentation of methods, the registration of a protocol, or other factors.
Systematic reviews should be transparent and replicable, requiring you to document each step as you progress. There is no one way to do this. Options include using Excel or Word, keeping a diary or journal, and creating personal database accounts for saving searches. Data collected for an SR should be accurate, complete, and in a format that allows for future updates and data sharing. EndNote libraries are an example of data formats to keep.
As with any data collection and reporting process, it's worthwhile keeping in mind basic data management principles:
Use filenames and systems that timecode your entries and updates, to avoid different collaborators working on different versions. (Using an electronic lab notebook such as LabArchives can be a useful way around this).
Data planning and Data storage are crucial elements in your planning process.
Consider making your data open (fully or partially): Open access data may even be a requirement for some systematic review organisations or publications. Find out more about open access data from the ARDC (Australian Research Data Commons) and from our guide.
There is a plethora of articles, books, and websites detailing methodologies and processes for creating other types of reviews that are considered 'systematic'. The resources below are a helpful beginning, as is the seminal article by Grant and Booth (2009) (UK librarians) and this website by Canadian librarians:
Rapid Reviews:
See the NCCMT Rapid Review Guidebook
Cochrane advice: Updated recommendations for the Cochrane rapid review methods guidance for rapid reviews of effectiveness
Scoping Reviews:
See the JBI Scoping Review Chapter in the JBI Manual
Umbrella Reviews:
See the JBI Umbrella Reviews Chapter in the JBI Manual
Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) is an evidence-based minimum set of items for reporting in systematic reviews and meta-analyses. The PRISMA 2020 statement aims to address ongoing issues of poorly documented review methods of published reviews, that lack transparency and reproducibility.
PRISMA resources include:
The PRISMA-S extension for searching was published in 2021 and is "a 16-item checklist that covers multiple aspects of the search process for systematic reviews. It is intended to guide reporting, not conduct, of the search." (Rethlefsen et al., 2021, p. 3)
Essential inclusions on the checklist are:
You may also find this article useful detailing some common questions regarding the PRISMA 2020 statement and PRISMA-S.
EQUATOR (Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health Research) Network is an international initiative that seeks to improve the value of published health literature by promoting transparent and accurate reporting via the use of robust reporting guidelines. The Equator Network site includes 549 reporting guidelines covering all areas of research study design. This includes PRISMA for systematic reviews and meta-analyses, and the AGREE reporting checklist for clinical practice guidelines.
MECCIR (Methodological Expectations of Campbell Collaboration Intervention Reviews) was developed to guide the conduct and reporting of systematic reviews. It includes checklists and other associated tools.
MECIR (Methodological Expectations of Cochrane Intervention Reviews) are "standards for the conduct and reporting of new Cochrane Intervention Reviews, reporting of protocols and the planning, conduct and reporting of updates".
PRIOR (Preferred Reporting Items for Overviews of Reviews) are "A reporting guideline based on evidence and agreement aims to facilitate improvements in the complete and accurate reporting of overviews of reviews".
ROSES (RepOrting standards for Systematic Evidence Syntheses) in environmental research includes forms and flow diagram.