The tool researchers now choose: what ten years of PROSPERO data shows

When researchers start a systematic review, many of them do something quietly important: they register their protocol in PROSPERO, the international registry hosted by the University of York. And when they do, they usually name the screening tool they plan to use. That name becomes part of a permanent, public, searchable record.  

This makes PROSPERO one of the most honest measures of tool adoption that exists. It does not count downloads. It does not count free accounts that were opened once and forgotten. It counts researchers who told the world, in writing, which tool their methodology depends on.  

We looked at ten years of that record. Here is what it shows.  

The numbers, year by yearA search of PROSPERO by tool name, filtered by registration year, tells a clear story. In 2016, about 1 in 10 researchers naming a screening tool in a new protocol chose Rayyan. The established alternative held the rest. Every year since, that gap has closed.  

In 2025, the lines crossed. Rayyan became the most-named tool in new PROSPERO registrations, 4,827 protocols against 3,593 for the leading alternative. Through May 2026, Rayyan holds 64% of new registrations across the two leading platforms, nearly two out of every three.  

One honest note, because honesty is the point of this series: if you count every protocol ever registered since the beginning, the long-established alternative still holds a slightly larger cumulative total. Cumulative counts reflect history. Annual counts reflect what researchers are choosing now. We think the second number is the one that matters if you are starting a review today, and it is not close.  

Why researchers switchedThree reasons come up again and again.  

• Free access: Rayyan's free plan removes procurement barriers. A graduate student in Colombo or a hospital team in Lagos can start screening today without a purchase order. That matters in a field where evidence synthesis is increasingly global.  
• Works with any database: Rayyan accepts exports from any search strategy, from any database. It does not lock you into one publisher's ecosystem, which is why protocols across medicine, education, environmental science, and business all cite it.  
• AI that earns its place: Features like AI-assisted screening and deduplication have been built and improved over years, and researchers report large time savings. In the original user survey, the average reported reduction in screening time was 40%.  

What this means for your next reviewTool choice is a methods decision, and methods decisions benefit from peer precedent. When you choose the platform that most of your peers now choose, you inherit their support networks, their library guides, their published workflows, and a community that has already answered most of the questions you will have.  

The full public record, with every source linked so you can check it yourself, is at rayyan.ai/impact. And if you are starting a review, you can begin screening with Rayyan today for free.

‍

‍