SynthesisBMC public health2024
Efficacy of relational agents for loneliness across age groups: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in BMC public health, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Autonomous conversational agents for loneliness, social isolation, depression, and anxiety in older people without cognitive impairment: Systematic review and meta-analysis.Psychological medicine · 2026Pooled it
- Trial
- Efficacy of artificial agents in loneliness alleviation among older adults: a protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis.BMJ open · 2026Article
- Digital bridges to social connection: A systematic review and meta-analysis of digital interventions for loneliness and social isolation.Internet interventions · 2025Review
- 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundLoneliness is a serious public health concern. Although previous interventions have had some success in mitigating loneliness, the field is in search of novel, more effective, and more scalable solutions. Here, we focus on "relational agents", a form of software agents that are increasingly powered by artificial intelligence and large language models (LLMs). We report on a systematic review and meta-analysis to investigate the impact of relational agents on loneliness across age groups.
methodsIn this systematic review and meta-analysis, we searched 11 databases including Ovid MEDLINE and Embase from inception to Sep 16, 2022. We included randomised controlled trials and non-randomised studies of interventions published in English across all age groups. These loneliness interventions, typically attempt to improve social skills, social support, social interaction, and maladaptive cognitions. Peer-reviewed journal articles, books, book chapters, Master's and PhD theses, or conference papers were eligible for inclusion. Two reviewers independently screened studies, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias via the RoB 2 and ROBINS-I tools. We calculated pooled estimates of Hedge's g in a random-effects meta-analysis and conducted sensitivity and sub-group analyses. We evaluated publication bias via funnel plots, Egger's test, and a trim-and-fill algorithm.
findingsOur search identified 3,935 records of which 14 met eligibility criteria and were included in our meta-analysis. Included studies comprised 286 participants with individual study sample sizes ranging from 4 to 42 participants (x̄ = 20.43, s = 11.58, x̃ = 20). We used a Bonferroni correction with α
conclusionOur results are currently the most comprehensive of their kind and provide promising evidence for the efficacy of relational agents. Relational agents are a promising technology that can alleviate loneliness in a scalable way and that can be a meaningful complement to other approaches. The advent of LLMs should boost their efficacy, and further research is needed to explore the optimal design and use of relational agents. Future research could also address shortcomings of current results, such as small sample sizes and high risk of bias. Particularly young audiences have been overlooked in past research.
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.