ArticleSystematic reviews2026
The landscape of artificial intelligence tools and platforms for evidence synthesis: a scoping review.
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.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Artificial Intelligence-Supported Evidence Synthesis: A Case Study of Smart Infusion Pump Interoperability.Medical sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Pooled it
- Pharmacogenetic Predictors of Chemotherapy Treatment-Related Toxicities in Paediatric and Adolescent Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia: A Systematic Review, Meta-Analysis and Literature-Based Candidate Prioritization.Pharmaceuticals (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Evidence-Based Medicine Meets Artificial Intelligence: Reframing Critical Appraisal in Emergency Medicine.Academic emergency medicine : official journal of the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.