ArticleBMC medical research methodology2025
Streamlining systematic reviews with large language models using prompt engineering and retrieval augmented generation.
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.
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
15 citing papers in PubMed.
- Artificial Intelligence Resources for the Screening of Titles and Abstracts in Systematic Reviews: A Scoping Review.Cochrane evidence synthesis and methods · 2026Review
- 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 · 2026Article
- A Machine Learning and Large Language Model Tool for Systematic Literature Reviews of Health Economic Evidence: A Validation Study.PharmacoEconomics · 2026Article
- Article
- Automated full-text screening and accelerated reviews using large language models with context-aware agents: an exploratory analysis in biomarker research.European heart journal. Digital health · 2026Article
- Evaluating the Utility of Artificial Intelligence in Conducting Systematic Reviews.Arthroplasty today · 2026Article
- From reviews to real-time: dynamic evidence in dentistry.Evidence-based dentistry · 2026Article
- Novel Abstract Screening Algorithm Using Delphi-Inspired Large Language Model Consensus for Systematic Reviews in Psychiatry: Nouvel algorithme de sélection des résumés utilisant un consensus issu d'un grand modèle de langage inspiré de la méthode Delphi pour les revues systématiques en psychiatrie.Canadian journal of psychiatry. Revue canadienne de psychiatrie · 2026Article
- Screenathon 2.0: human-AI collaborative screening applied to patient-generated health data.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Research Waste, Redundancy and the Rise of the Machines: The Questionable Future of Systematic Reviews.Drug and alcohol review · 2026Article
- Cybersecurity in Radio Frequency Technologies: A Scientometric and Systematic Review with Implications for IoT and Wireless Applications.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Human-AI collaboration enhances the performance of large language models in risk of bias assessment.BMC medical research methodology · 2026Article
- Evaluating the Efficacy and Efficiency of GPT-5 for Automated Title and Abstract Screening in Orthopedic Surgery Systematic Reviews.Current reviews in musculoskeletal medicine · 2025Review
- Accelerating clinical evidence synthesis with large language models.NPJ digital medicine · 2025Article
- 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
7 authors.
Funding
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
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.