Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40504403›Full record

ArticleJournal of medical systems2025

Large Language Models and the Analyses of Adherence to Reporting Guidelines in Systematic Reviews and Overviews of Reviews (PRISMA 2020 and PRIOR).

Diego A Forero, Sandra E Abreu, Blanca E Tovar, Marilyn H Oermann

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of medical systems, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing 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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Comparing the performance of four mainstream large language models on medical literature review generation: a human expert evaluation in SMILE surgery.Graefe's archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology = Albrecht von Graefes Archiv fur klinische und experimentelle Ophthalmologie · 2026
    Article
  4. Review
  5. 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

4 authors.

Diego A ForeroSchool of Health and Sport Sciences, Fundación Universitaria del Área Andina, Bogotá, Colombia. dforero41@areandina.edu.co.
Sandra E AbreuPsychology Program, Fundación Universitaria del Área Andina, Medellín, Colombia.
Blanca E TovarNursing Program, School of Health and Sport Sciences, Fundación Universitaria del Área Andina, Bogotá, Colombia.
Marilyn H OermannDuke University School of Nursing, Durham, NC, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In the context of Evidence-Based Practice (EBP), Systematic Reviews (SRs), Meta-Analyses (MAs) and overview of reviews have become cornerstones for the synthesis of research findings. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) 2020 and Preferred Reporting Items for Overviews of Reviews (PRIOR) statements have become major reporting guidelines for SRs/MAs and for overviews of reviews, respectively. In recent years, advances in Generative Artificial Intelligence (genAI) have been proposed as a potential major paradigm shift in scientific research. The main aim of this research was to examine the performance of four LLMs for the analysis of adherence to PRISMA 2020 and PRIOR, in a sample of 20 SRs and 20 overviews of reviews. We tested the free versions of four commonly used LLMs: ChatGPT (GPT-4o), DeepSeek (V3), Gemini (2.0 Flash) and Qwen (2.5 Max). Adherence to PRISMA 2020 and PRIOR was compared with scores defined previously by human experts, using several statistical tests. In our results, all the four LLMs showed a low performance for the analysis of adherence to PRISMA 2020, overestimating the percentage of adherence (from 23 to 30%). For PRIOR, the LLMs presented lower differences in the estimation of adherence (from 6 to 14%) and ChatGPT showed a performance similar to human experts. This is the first report of the performance of four commonly used LLMs for the analysis of adherence to PRISMA 2020 and PRIOR. Future studies of adherence to other reporting guidelines will be helpful in health sciences research.

Indexed as

Guideline AdherenceGuidelines as TopicSystematic Reviews as TopicArtificial IntelligenceHumansLarge Language ModelsMeta-Analysis as TopicEvidence-based practiceGenerative artificial intelligenceMeta-researchOverview of reviewsReporting guidelinesSystematic reviewsUmbrella reviews

Identifiers

PMID40504403
PMCPMC12162794

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.