ArticleBMJ open2026
Efficacy of artificial agents in loneliness alleviation among older adults: a protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Article in BMJ open, 2026. 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionApproximately 20%-40% of older adults face loneliness. The effectiveness of artificial agents used to treat loneliness in this population is contentious in current studies. We aim to investigate the efficacy of this treatment for loneliness and other well-being outcomes in the elderly and identify factors that moderate its effects. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials and non-randomised studies of interventions with control groups involving artificial agents to alleviate loneliness in older populations; data sourced from PubMed, CENTRAL, EMBASE, CINAHL (EBSCO) and PsycINFO (EBSCO). Two reviewers will independently assess the literature, with a third reviewer consulted to resolve disagreements. Study characteristics will be narratively summarised. A meta-analysis will assess treatment effects on loneliness and other outcomes. Meta-regression and subgroup analysis will be conducted based on artificial agent type, treatment strategy and participants' settings; and comparisons performed via a random-effects model, using Cochrane Review Manager V.5.4.1 and STATA V.16.0 for quantitative synthesis. Study quality will be assessed using appropriate risk-of-bias assessment tools. Cochran's Q test and I ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Since this systematic review is carried out based on published scientific databases, it is exempt from ethics approval. The findings of this review will be disseminated in a related peer-review journal. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42023428127.
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.