SynthesisJournal of medical Internet research2025
Reporting Quality of AI Intervention in Randomized Controlled Trials in Primary Care: Systematic Review and Meta-Epidemiological Study.
Synthesis in Journal of medical Internet research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe surge in artificial intelligence (AI) interventions in primary care trials lacks a study on reporting quality.
objectiveThis study aimed to systematically evaluate the reporting quality of both published randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and protocols for RCTs that investigated AI interventions in primary care.
methodsPubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, Web of Science, and CINAHL databases were searched for RCTs and protocols on AI interventions in primary care until November 2024. Eligible studies were published RCTs or full protocols for RCTs exploring AI interventions in primary care. The reporting quality was assessed using CONSORT-AI (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials-Artificial Intelligence) and SPIRIT-AI (Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials-Artificial Intelligence) checklists, focusing on AI intervention-related items.
resultsA total of 11,711 records were identified. In total, 19 published RCTs and 21 RCT protocols for 35 trials were included. The overall proportion of adequately reported items was 65% (172/266; 95% CI 59%-70%) and 68% (214/315; 95% CI 62%-73%) for RCTs and protocols, respectively. The percentage of RCTs and protocols that reported a specific item ranged from 11% (2/19) to 100% (19/19) and from 10% (2/21) to 100% (21/21), respectively. The reporting of both RCTs and protocols exhibited similar characteristics and trends. They both lack transparency and completeness, which can be summarized in three aspects: without providing adequate information regarding the input data, without mentioning the methods for identifying and analyzing performance errors, and without stating whether and how the AI intervention and its code can be accessed.
conclusionsThe reporting quality could be improved in both RCTs and protocols. This study helps promote the transparent and complete reporting of trials with AI interventions in primary care.
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.