Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41664235›Full record

ArticleSystematic reviews2026

The landscape of artificial intelligence tools and platforms for evidence synthesis: a scoping review.

M Sharmila A Sousa, Sasha Peiris, Mabel F Figueiró, Michelle M Haby, Ana Cyntia Baraldi, Ludovic Reveiz, João Paulo Souza

Abstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in Systematic reviews, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Evidence-Based Medicine Meets Artificial Intelligence: Reframing Critical Appraisal in Emergency Medicine.Academic emergency medicine : official journal of the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine · 2026
    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

7 authors.

M Sharmila A SousaDepartment of Medicine, Department of Morphology and Genetics, Escola Paulista de Medicina, Universidade Federal de São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil. sharmila.sousa@gmail.com.
Sasha PeirisScience and Knowledge for Impact Unit, Evidence and Intelligence for Action in Health, Pan American Health Organization, Washington, DC, USA.
Mabel F FigueiróHcor - Associação Beneficente Síria, São Paulo, Brazil.
Michelle M HabyFaculty of Biological and Health Sciences, University of Sonora, Hermosillo, Mexico.
Ana Cyntia BaraldiEvidence and Intelligence for Action in Health, BIREME, Pan American Health Organization, Brasilia, Brazil.
Ludovic ReveizScience and Knowledge for Impact Unit, Evidence and Intelligence for Action in Health, Pan American Health Organization, Washington, DC, USA.
João Paulo SouzaEvidence and Intelligence for Action in Health, BIREME, Pan American Health Organization, Brasilia, Brazil.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Evidence synthesis (ES) involves rigorous, reproducible methodologies, which are increasingly being presented as 'Living' systematic reviews. As such, ES are critical to evidence-informed decision-making processes, such as the development, implementation, evaluation and monitoring of health technology assessments, practice guidelines and policies. However, the ES process is time-intensive, typically requiring months or years and extensive manual effort. Technological advancements, particularly artificial intelligence (AI), offer opportunities to automate various ES steps, potentially increasing efficiency and reducing costs. AI tools and platforms, including large language models (LLMs), facilitate faster ES through advanced natural language processing (NLP) capabilities. Despite their potential, AI tools have limitations, including risks of automation bias and lack of true semantic understanding, requiring careful evaluation to ensure trustworthiness. We conducted the first scoping review to update and map all data science tools, including LLMs, which are either being developed and/or deployed to optimise ES steps and assess their impact in both low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) and high-income countries (HICs). Our scoping review identified 137 studies and 388 of such AI tools and platforms to respond to the World Health Organization's call for safe and ethical AI in health, documenting the current landscape to identify barriers and facilitators to equitable and sustainable access for glocal researchers. We further outline three recommendations: (1) promote collaborative AI platforms ensuring equity of access to include gap regions identified (Latin America, Africa, Middle East), (2) establish evaluation standards for methods testing and reporting, and (3) emphasise human input and multidisciplinary capacity building for developing and implementing AI tools in ES.

Indexed as

Artificial IntelligenceHumansIntelligent SystemsLarge Language ModelsNatural Language ProcessingTechnology Assessment, Biomedical

Identifiers

PMID41664235
PMCPMC12998105

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.