ArticleWorld journal of methodology2025
Accuracy of artificial intelligence in meta-analysis: A comparative study of ChatGPT 4.0 and traditional methods in data synthesis.
Article in World journal of methodology, 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMeta-analysis is a critical tool in evidence-based medicine, particularly in cardiology, where it synthesizes data from multiple studies to inform clinical decisions. This study explored the potential of using ChatGPT to streamline and enhance the meta-analysis process.
aimTo investigate the potential of ChatGPT to conduct meta-analyses in interventional cardiology by comparing the results of ChatGPT-generated analyses with those of randomly selected, human-conducted meta-analyses on the same topic.
methodsWe systematically searched PubMed for meta-analyses on interventional cardiology published in 2024. Five meta-analyses were randomly chosen. ChatGPT 4.0 was used to perform meta-analyses on the extracted data. We compared the results from ChatGPT with the original meta-analyses, focusing on key effect sizes, such as risk ratios (RR), hazard ratios, and odds ratios, along with their confidence intervals (CI) and
resultsThe ChatGPT results showed high concordance with those of the original meta-analyses. For most outcomes, the effect measures and
conclusionOur findings suggest the potential of ChatGPT in conducting meta-analyses in interventional cardiology. However, further research is needed to address the limitations of transparency and potential data quality issues, ensuring that AI-generated analyses are robust and trustworthy for clinical decision-making.
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.