ArticleCochrane evidence synthesis and methods2024
The use of a large language model to create plain language summaries of evidence reviews in healthcare: A feasibility study.
Article in Cochrane evidence synthesis and methods, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 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
13 citing papers in PubMed.
- Artificial Intelligence for Discovery in Life Sciences.Bioconjugate chemistry · 2026Review
- Real-Time Evaluation of a Large Language Model for Clinical Practice Guideline Development.Critical care explorations · 2026Article
- Using Large Language Models to Address Contextual Questions in Systematic Reviews.Cochrane evidence synthesis and methods · 2026Article
- Evaluating the performance of a generative AI model in assessing qualitative health research articles adherence to objective reporting standards.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Leveraging Large Language Models to Improve the Readability of German Online Medical Texts: Evaluation Study.JMIR AI · 2026Article
- Psychometric applications of generative artificial intelligence: Lifecycle, risks, and research agenda.PLOS mental health · 2026Review
- Comparison of three large language models' ability to assess the risk of bias using ROBINS-I tool.BMJ digital health & AI · 2026Article
- From promise to practice: challenges and pitfalls in the evaluation of large language models for data extraction in evidence synthesis.BMJ evidence-based medicine · 2025Article
- ChatGPT-4o Compared With Human Researchers in Writing Plain-Language Summaries for Cochrane Reviews: A Blinded, Randomized Non-Inferiority Controlled Trial.Cochrane evidence synthesis and methods · 2025Article
- Using GPT-4 for Title and Abstract Screening in a Literature Review of Public Policies: A Feasibility Study.Cochrane evidence synthesis and methods · 2025Article
- Assessing the Capability of Large Language Model Chatbots in Generating Plain Language Summaries.Cureus · 2025Article
- The use of a large language model to create plain language summaries of evidence reviews in healthcare: A feasibility study.Cochrane evidence synthesis and methods · 2024Article
- A Pilot Study on Generative Artificial Intelligence's Reliability in Qualitative Research Quality Appraisal Using CASP and JBI Checklists.Inquiry : a journal of medical care organization, provision and financingArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Plain language summaries (PLSs) make complex healthcare evidence accessible to patients and the public. Large language models (LLMs) may assist in generating accurate, readable PLSs. This study explored using the LLM Claude 2 to create PLSs of evidence reviews from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) Effective Health Care Program. Methods: We selected 10 evidence reviews published from 2021 to 2023, representing a range of methods and topics. We iteratively developed a prompt to guide Claude 2 in creating PLSs which included specifications for plain language, reading level, length, organizational structure, active voice, and inclusive language. PLSs were assessed for adherence to prompt specifications, comprehensiveness, accuracy, readability, and cultural sensitivity. Results: All PLSs met the word count. We judged one PLS as fully comprehensive; seven mostly comprehensive. We judged two PLSs as fully capturing the PICO elements; five with minor PICO errors. We judged three PLSs as accurately reporting the results; and four with minor result errors. We judged three PLSs as having major result errors for incorrectly reporting total participants. Five PLSs met the target 6th to 8th grade reading level. Passive voice use averaged 16%. All PLSs used inclusive language. Conclusions: LLMs show promise for assisting in PLS creation but likely require human input to ensure accuracy, comprehensiveness, and the appropriate nuances of interpretation. Iterative prompt refinement may improve results and address the needs of specific reviews and audiences. As text-only summaries, the AI-generated PLSs could not meet all consumer communication criteria, such as textual design and visual representations. Further testing should include consumer reviewers and explore how to best leverage LLM support in drafting PLS text for complex evidence reviews.
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.