ArticleSystematic reviews2019
Still moving toward automation of the systematic review process: a summary of discussions at the third meeting of the International Collaboration for Automation of Systematic Reviews (ICASR).
Article in Systematic reviews, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
23 citing papers in PubMed.
- Applications of Large Language Models in Medical Research: From Systematic Reviews to Clinical Studies.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Automated tools in systematic reviews: Current trends.Indian journal of anaesthesia · 2025Article
- Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning to Improve Evidence Synthesis Production Efficiency: An Observational Study of Resource Use and Time-to-Completion.Cochrane evidence synthesis and methods · 2025Article
- Artificial intelligence in food and nutrition evidence: The challenges and opportunities.PNAS nexus · 2024Article
- Article
- Article
- Comparing generative and extractive approaches to information extraction from abstracts describing randomized clinical trials.Journal of biomedical semantics · 2024Article
- A comparison of machine learning methods to find clinical trials for inclusion in new systematic reviews from their PROSPERO registrations prior to searching and screening.Research synthesis methods · 2024Article
- The effect of machine learning tools for evidence synthesis on resource use and time-to-completion: protocol for a retrospective pilot study.Systematic reviews · 2023Article
- Evidence synthesis, digital scribes, and translational challenges for artificial intelligence in healthcare.Cell reports. Medicine · 2022Review
- Synthesizing evidence from clinical trials with dynamic interactive argument trees.Journal of biomedical semantics · 2022Article
- An annotated corpus of clinical trial publications supporting schema-based relational information extraction.Journal of biomedical semantics · 2022Article
- Construction of a Meta-Evidence Prototype Database of Traditional Chinese Medicine Splenogastric Diseases and Its Application in an Automatic Meta-Analysis System.Evidence-based complementary and alternative medicine : eCAM · 2022Article
- Evaluating the relationship between citation set size, team size and screening methods used in systematic reviews: a cross-sectional study.BMC medical research methodology · 2021Article
- The Impact of Systematic Review Automation Tools on Methodological Quality and Time Taken to Complete Systematic Review Tasks: Case Study.JMIR medical education · 2021Article
- The views of health guideline developers on the use of automation in health evidence synthesis.Systematic reviews · 2021Article
- Cost-effectiveness of Microsoft Academic Graph with machine learning for automated study identification in a living map of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) research.Wellcome open research · 2021Article
- Article
- Artificial Intelligence for chemical risk assessment.Computational toxicology (Amsterdam, Netherlands) · 2020Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The third meeting of the International Collaboration for Automation of Systematic Reviews (ICASR) was held 17-18 October 2017 in London, England. ICASR is an interdisciplinary group whose goal is to maximize the use of technology for conducting rapid, accurate, and efficient systematic reviews of scientific evidence. The group seeks to facilitate the development and widespread acceptance of automated techniques for systematic reviews. The meeting's conclusion was that the most pressing needs at present are to develop approaches for validating currently available tools and to provide increased access to curated corpora that can be used for validation. To that end, ICASR's short-term goals in 2018-2019 are to propose and publish protocols for key tasks in systematic reviews and to develop an approach for sharing curated corpora for validating the automation of the key tasks.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.