Systematic Review Protocol Template: Decisions to Freeze Before Screening
Use a systematic review protocol template to record eligibility, search, extraction, synthesis, and amendment decisions before screening begins.
Next step
Choose the next useful decision step first.
Use the guide or checklist that matches this page's intent before you ask for a manuscript-level diagnostic.
Quick answer: A systematic review protocol template is a record of the decisions your team intends to follow before it sees the review's results. Write operational rules another reviewer can apply, assign responsibility for unresolved decisions, and retain dated amendments. Use the PRISMA-P checklist to check protocol reporting; a completed worksheet alone does not demonstrate sound methods or registration eligibility.
Evidence basis: We checked PRISMA-P, PRISMA 2020 and Cochrane's review-planning guidance on September 13, 2026. The worksheet and borderline-setting rehearsal translate those resources into team decisions; they have not been validated on a review corpus and do not replace specialist methods advice.
Copyable protocol planning template
Replace each prompt with your team's decision. A bracket left unresolved is work to complete before the relevant review stage, not language to publish.
Protocol field | Enter your decision | Check before moving on |
|---|---|---|
Question and purpose | [Population, question, intended decision and scope] | Could two reviewers describe the same review? |
Eligibility | [Eligible designs, settings, participants and exclusions] | Can a borderline example be resolved? |
Information sources | [Databases and additional sources with rationale] | Does the source mix cover the question? |
Search strategy | [Reproducible strategy for each source and planned dates] | Can the search be rerun? |
Selection | [Screening roles, disagreement process and exclusion recording] | Is the decision trail retained? |
Extraction | [Fields, units, time points and checking process] | Are multiple reports of one study linked? |
Risk of bias | [Appropriate method, assessors and disagreement process] | Does the method suit each eligible design? |
Synthesis | [Grouping rules, effect measures and conditions for pooling] | Is a non-pooling route specified? |
Reporting and amendments | [Reporting checklist, version owner and change log] | Can readers distinguish planned from changed methods? |
This is a planning scaffold. The full PRISMA-P materials include reporting details beyond these rows; use them alongside methodological advice suitable for your review type. PRISMA-P official resources, accessed September 13, 2026.
Test the protocol with a borderline study
Imagine your question concerns an intervention delivered in primary care, but a potentially eligible study recruits in a hospital and delivers follow-up remotely. Before formal screening, ask each reviewer to apply the setting rule independently. If the answers differ, clarify what determines setting eligibility. Do not settle the rule by looking at whether the study's result supports the hypothesis.
Write the resolved rule in the eligibility section. Record the example and the reason in a team decision log. This small rehearsal exposes ambiguity before it affects many screening decisions; it is an editorial workflow suggestion rather than a mandatory PRISMA-P item.
Amendment log
Date and version | Original rule | Revised rule | Reason | Review stage and results already known |
|---|---|---|---|---|
[Date/version] | [Exact prior text] | [Exact replacement] | [Operational or methodological reason] | [What the team had seen] |
Keep the previous version. If a change follows discovery that the evidence cannot support the planned synthesis, explain that limitation openly. A transparent amendment does not retroactively make the new decision prespecified.
Decide whether the protocol is ready
Pause if eligibility cannot be applied consistently, no one owns search verification, or the synthesis plan assumes compatible data without defining compatibility. Ask a methods specialist to resolve design-specific questions. Cochrane's introduction emphasizes prespecified methods, a suitable team, and reliable data management for intervention reviews. Its scope should not be silently generalized to every evidence-synthesis design. Cochrane: Starting a review, accessed September 13, 2026.
For the later manuscript stage, see how to write a systematic review. When a draft exists, a manuscript methods review can help identify unclear reporting; it does not replace conducting or independently verifying the review.
Our editorial analysis: failure patterns in protocol decisions
Evidence basis: At Manusights, we built this worksheet by separating a protocol's reporting fields from the decisions a team needs to execute. Our analysis uses the official PRISMA-P resources and Cochrane's introduction, plus the clearly fictional borderline-study rehearsal above. We did not test this template on a review corpus. It cannot predict editorial decisions. Its added value is a visible stop condition for ambiguous rules, not another list of section headings.
Eligibility written as a topic. “Studies about remote care” names a subject but does not tell screeners which designs or settings qualify. The repair is an inclusion rule with a boundary example. Ask whether two eligible populations in one report require separate extraction or exclusion, and record the answer before it becomes a disagreement over an actual result.
Pooling promised before compatibility is defined. A protocol says a meta-analysis will be performed but does not establish how outcomes, time points, or designs will be grouped. The repair is to define the grouping logic with a methods specialist and specify what the team will do when a group cannot support the planned analysis. Do not make a pooled number the condition for considering the review successful.
An amendment erases the original plan. Editing the document in place makes it impossible to tell which decisions preceded the findings. Keep dated versions and identify the stage at which each change occurred. A change can be justified without being misrepresented as the initial plan.
Choose the right reporting resource
Resource | What it helps report | What it does not establish |
|---|---|---|
PRISMA-P | Systematic review protocol | That every methodological choice is appropriate |
PRISMA 2020 | Completed systematic review | That planned procedures were actually performed |
This decision log | Team rules and changes | Registration, certification, or journal acceptance |
The PRISMA 2020 statement provides the main checklist, an abstract checklist and flow-diagram templates for review reporting. Keep the protocol and completed-review resources distinct. Accessed September 13, 2026.
Readiness check
Run the scan while the topic is in front of you.
See score, top issues, and journal-fit signals before you submit.
Use this template if; think twice if
Use it if your team needs to convert an agreed review question into explicit operational rules. Think twice if the review type is still unsettled or no one has relevant methodological expertise: the table cannot choose the correct synthesis design for you. For a check on how a later manuscript will be assessed, read what peer reviewers look for, while retaining the appropriate specialist review-method requirements.
Frequently asked questions
No. It is an operational planning scaffold. Check the full official PRISMA-P materials and methods guidance appropriate to your review.
Record amendments with the original and revised rule, reason, date, and what results were already known. Keep the prior version.
No. Registration is a separate process with its own eligibility and submission requirements.
Sources
- PRISMA-P protocol reporting resources, accessed September 13, 2026.
- Cochrane Handbook, Chapter 1, accessed September 13, 2026.
- PRISMA 2020 statement and reporting resources, accessed September 13, 2026.
Before you upload
Choose the next useful decision step first.
Move from this article into the next decision-support step. The scan works best once the journal and submission plan are clearer.
Use the scan once the manuscript and target journal are concrete enough to evaluate.
Private API processing. Your manuscript is not used to train models.
Put the guidance to work
Choose the practical next step for your research.
Start with the question in front of you, or use the guided learning path when you want a clearer view of the full publishing process.