ArticleCanadian Urological Association journal = Journal de l'Association des urologues du Canada2025
Assessing the methodologic quality of systematic reviews using generative large language models.
Article in Canadian Urological Association journal = Journal de l'Association des urologues du Canada, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionWe aimed to evaluate whether generative large language models (LLMs) can accurately assess the methodologic quality of systematic reviews (SRs).
methodsA total of 114 SRs from five leading urology journals were included in the study. Human reviewers graded each of the SRs in duplicate, with differences adjudicated by a third expert. We created a customized generative artificial intelligence (generative pre-trained transformer [GPT]), "Urology AMSTAR 2 Quality Assessor," and graded the 114 SRs in three iterations using a zero-shot method. We performed an enhanced trial focusing on critical criteria by giving GPT detailed, step-by-step instructions for each of the SRs using chain-of-thought method. Accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, and F1 score for each GPT trial were calculated against human results. Internal validity among three trials were computed.
resultsGPT had an overall congruence of 75%, with 77% in critical criteria and 73% in non-critical criteria when compared to human results. The average F1 score was 0.66. There was a high internal validity at 85% among three iterations. GPT accurately assigned 89% of studies into the correct overall category. When given specific, step-by-step instructions, congruence of critical criteria improved to 91%, and overall quality assessment accuracy to 93%.
conclusionsGPT showed promising ability to efficiently and accurately assess the quality of SRs in urology.
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.