Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37419641›Full record

ReviewBMJ open2023

Artificial intelligence in systematic reviews: promising when appropriately used.

Sanne H B van Dijk, Marjolein G J Brusse-Keizer, Charlotte C Bucsán, Job van der Palen, Carine J M Doggen, Anke Lenferink

Abstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in BMJ open, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 111 papers, 23 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
111citing papers in PubMed, 23 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

111 citing papers in PubMed, 23 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Pooled it
  12. Pooled it
  13. Pooled it
  14. Pooled it
  15. Pooled it
  16. Pooled it
  17. Pooled it
  18. Pooled it
  19. Pooled it
  20. Pooled it

51 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Sanne H B van DijkHealth Technology & Services Research, Technical Medical Centre, University of Twente, Enschede, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0003-1727-0608
Marjolein G J Brusse-KeizerHealth Technology & Services Research, Technical Medical Centre, University of Twente, Enschede, The Netherlands.
Charlotte C BucsánPulmonary Medicine, Medisch Spectrum Twente, Enschede, The Netherlands.
Job van der PalenMedical School Twente, Medisch Spectrum Twente, Enschede, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0003-1071-6769
Carine J M DoggenHealth Technology & Services Research, Technical Medical Centre, University of Twente, Enschede, The Netherlands.
Anke LenferinkHealth Technology & Services Research, Technical Medical Centre, University of Twente, Enschede, The Netherlands a.lenferink@utwente.nl.ORCID 0000-0002-2276-5691

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundSystematic reviews provide a structured overview of the available evidence in medical-scientific research. However, due to the increasing medical-scientific research output, it is a time-consuming task to conduct systematic reviews. To accelerate this process, artificial intelligence (AI) can be used in the review process. In this communication paper, we suggest how to conduct a transparent and reliable systematic review using the AI tool 'ASReview' in the title and abstract screening.

methodsUse of the AI tool consisted of several steps. First, the tool required training of its algorithm with several prelabelled articles prior to screening. Next, using a researcher-in-the-loop algorithm, the AI tool proposed the article with the highest probability of being relevant. The reviewer then decided on relevancy of each article proposed. This process was continued until the stopping criterion was reached. All articles labelled relevant by the reviewer were screened on full text.

resultsConsiderations to ensure methodological quality when using AI in systematic reviews included: the choice of whether to use AI, the need of both deduplication and checking for inter-reviewer agreement, how to choose a stopping criterion and the quality of reporting. Using the tool in our review resulted in much time saved: only 23% of the articles were assessed by the reviewer.

conclusionThe AI tool is a promising innovation for the current systematic reviewing practice, as long as it is appropriately used and methodological quality can be assured. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42022283952.

Indexed as

Artificial IntelligenceBiomedical ResearchAlgorithmsCommunicationHumansSystematic Reviews as Topicinformation technologystatistics & research methodssystematic review

Identifiers

PMID37419641
PMCPMC10335470

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.