Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40349005›Full record

ArticleBMC medical research methodology2025

Streamlining systematic reviews with large language models using prompt engineering and retrieval augmented generation.

Fouad Trad, Ryan Yammine, Jana Charafeddine, Marlene Chakhtoura, Maya Rahme, Ghada El-Hajj Fuleihan, Ali Chehab

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical research methodology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed
–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

15 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Using a large language model as a third reviewer to augment dual human full-text screening in orthopaedic systematic reviews.Knee surgery, sports traumatology, arthroscopy : official journal of the ESSKA · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
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

7 authors.

Fouad TradDepartment of Electrical and Computer Engineering, American University of Beirut, Beirut, Lebanon. fat10@mail.aub.edu.
Ryan YammineFaculty of Medicine, American University of Beirut, Beirut, Lebanon.
Jana CharafeddineDepartment of Electrical and Computer Engineering, American University of Beirut, Beirut, Lebanon.
Marlene ChakhtouraFaculty of Medicine, American University of Beirut, Beirut, Lebanon.
Maya RahmeFaculty of Medicine, American University of Beirut, Beirut, Lebanon.
Ghada El-Hajj FuleihanFaculty of Medicine, American University of Beirut, Beirut, Lebanon.
Ali ChehabDepartment of Electrical and Computer Engineering, American University of Beirut, Beirut, Lebanon.

Funding

Genetic and Metabolic Determinants of 25(OH)D levels at Baseline and One Year: Findings from a Dose Ranging Vitamin D trialD43TW009118 · FIC · AMERICAN UNIVERSITY OF BEIRUT · PI FULEIHAN, GHADA ELHAJJ · 2012 to 2024
$2.5M
NIH HHS D43 TW009118
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundSystematic reviews (SRs) are essential to formulate evidence-based guidelines but require time-consuming and costly literature screening. Large Language Models (LLMs) can be a powerful tool to expedite SRs.

methodsWe conducted a comparative study to evaluate the performance of a commercial tool, Rayyan, and an in-house LLM-based system in automating the screening of a completed SR on Vitamin D and falls. The SR retrieved 14,439 articles, and Rayyan was trained with 2,000 manually screened articles to categorize the rest as most likely to exclude/include, likely to exclude/include and undecided. We analyzed Rayyan's title/abstract screening performance using different inclusion thresholds. For the LLM, we used prompt engineering for title/abstract screening and Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) for full-text screening. We evaluated performance using article exclusion rate (AER), false negative rate (FNR), specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV). Additionally, we compared the time required to complete screening steps of the SR using both approaches against the manual screening method.

resultsUsing Rayyan, including considered as undecided or likely to include for title/abstract screening resulted in an AER of 72.1% and an FNR of 5%. The total estimated screening time, including manual review of articles flagged by Rayyan, was 54.7 hours. Lowering the Rayyan threshold to 'likely to exclude' reduced the FNR to 0% and the AER to 50.7%, but increased the screening time to 81.3 h. Using the LLM system, after title/abstract and full-text screening, 78 articles remained for manual review, including all 20 identified by traditional methods. The LLM achieved an AER of 99.5%, specificity of 99.6%, PPV of 25.6%, and NPV of 100%, with a total screening time of 25.5 h, including manual review of the 78 articles, reducing the manual screening time by 95.5%.

conclusionsThe LLM-based system significantly enhances SR efficiency, compared to manual methods and Rayyan while maintaining low FNR.

Indexed as

Information Storage and RetrievalSystematic Reviews as TopicEvidence-Based MedicineHumansLarge Language ModelsLarge language modelsPrompt engineeringRayyan AIRetrieval-augmented generationSystematic reviews

Identifiers

PMID40349005
PMCPMC12065358

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.