Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41626986›Full record

ArticleResearch synthesis methods2025

Using large language models to directly screen electronic databases as an alternative to traditional search strategies such as the Cochrane highly sensitive search for filtering randomized controlled trials in systematic reviews.

Viet-Thi Tran, Carolina Grana Possamai, Isabelle Boutron, Philippe Ravaud

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Research synthesis methods, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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.

Viet-Thi TranCenter for Research in Epidemiology and Statistics (CRESS), https://ror.org/05f82e368Université Paris Cité and Université Sorbonne Paris Nord, INSERM, INRAE, Paris, France.
Carolina Grana PossamaiCenter for Research in Epidemiology and Statistics (CRESS), https://ror.org/05f82e368Université Paris Cité and Université Sorbonne Paris Nord, INSERM, INRAE, Paris, France.
Isabelle BoutronCenter for Research in Epidemiology and Statistics (CRESS), https://ror.org/05f82e368Université Paris Cité and Université Sorbonne Paris Nord, INSERM, INRAE, Paris, France.
Philippe RavaudCenter for Research in Epidemiology and Statistics (CRESS), https://ror.org/05f82e368Université Paris Cité and Université Sorbonne Paris Nord, INSERM, INRAE, Paris, France.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

A critical step in systematic reviews involves the definition of a search strategy, with keywords and Boolean logic, to filter electronic databases. We hypothesize that it is possible to screen articles in electronic databases using large language models (LLMs) as an alternative to search equations. To investigate this matter, we compared two methods to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in electronic databases: filtering databases using the Cochrane highly sensitive search and an assessment by an LLM.We retrieved studies indexed in PubMed with a publication date between September 1 and September 30, 2024 using the sole keyword "diabetes." We compared the performance of the Cochrane highly sensitive search and the assessment of all titles and abstracts extracted directly from the database by GPT-4o-mini to identify RCTs. Reference standard was the manual screening of retrieved articles by two independent reviewers.The search retrieved 6377 records, of which 210 (3.5%) were primary reports of RCTs. The Cochrane highly sensitive search filtered 2197 records and missed one RCT (sensitivity 99.5%, 95% CI 97.4% to100%; specificity 67.8%, 95% CI 66.6% to 68.9%). Assessment of all titles and abstracts from the electronic database by GPT filtered 1080 records and included all 210 primary reports of RCTs (sensitivity 100%, 95% CI 98.3% to100%; specificity 85.9%, 95% CI 85.0% to 86.8%).LLMs can screen all articles in electronic databases to identify RCTs as an alternative to the Cochrane highly sensitive search. This calls for the evaluation of LLMs as an alternative to rigid search strategies.

Indexed as

Databases, BibliographicLarge Language ModelsRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicSystematic Reviews as TopicHumansPubMedSensitivity and SpecificityLarge language modelssearch strategysystematic reviews

Identifiers

PMID41626986
PMCPMC12657644

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.