ArticleBMJ open2024
Use of artificial intelligence in obstetric and gynaecological diagnostics: a protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Article in BMJ open, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Accuracy of artificial intelligence in orthodontic extraction treatment planning: a systematic review and meta analysis.BMC oral health · 2025Pooled it
- Cognitive Tunneling in Obstetrics and Gynecology: A Critical Review of Implications for Clinical Practice and Mitigation Strategies.Diseases (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Artificial intelligence and sexual reproductive health and rights: a technological leap towards achieving sustainable development goal target 3.7.Reproductive health · 2024Article
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionEmerging developments in applications of artificial intelligence (AI) in healthcare offer the opportunity to improve diagnostic capabilities in obstetrics and gynaecology (O&G), ensuring early detection of pathology, optimal management and improving survival. Consensus on a robust AI healthcare framework is crucial for standardising protocols that promote data privacy and transparency, minimise bias, and ensure patient safety. Here, we describe the study protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate current applications of AI in O&G diagnostics with consideration of reporting standards used and their ethical implications. This protocol is written following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 checklist. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The study objective is to explore the current application of AI in O&G diagnostics and assess the reporting standards used in these studies. Electronic bibliographic databases MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane will be searched. Study selection, data extraction and subsequent narrative synthesis and meta-analyses will be carried out following the PRISMA-P guidelines. Included papers will be English-language full-text articles from May 2015 to March 2024, which provide original data, as AI has been redefined in recent literature. Papers must use AI as the predictive method, focusing on improving O&G diagnostic outcomes.We will evaluate the reporting standards including the risk of bias, lack of transparency and consider the ethical implications and potential harm to patients. Outcome measures will involve assessing the included studies against gold-standard criteria for robustness of model development (Transparent Reporting of a multivariable prediction model for Individual Prognosis Or Diagnosis, model predictive performance, model risk of bias and applicability (Prediction model Risk Of Bias Assessment Tool and study reporting (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials-AI) guidance. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval is not required for this systematic review. Findings will be shared through peer-reviewed publications. There will be no patient or public involvement in this study. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42022357024 .
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.