SynthesisMedical sciences (Basel, Switzerland)2026
Artificial Intelligence-Supported Evidence Synthesis: A Case Study of Smart Infusion Pump Interoperability.
Synthesis in Medical sciences (Basel, Switzerland), 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND/
objectivesArtificial intelligence tools have emerged as promising methodological support for systematic reviews and health technology assessment (HTA). Smart infusion pump interoperability represents a relevant case study due to its implications for medication safety, nursing workflow, and hospital quality improvement. The aim was to evaluate the performance of artificial intelligence as a methodological support tool across a systematic review, using the evidence synthesis on smart infusion pump-electronic health record interoperability as a case study.
methodsA systematic review following PRISMA 2020 guidelines was conducted. Searches were performed in MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases. AI-assisted tools (ChatGPT GPT-4 and Open Science Reviewer) were incorporated into data extraction, reporting appraisal based on STROBE criteria, and exploratory identification of methodological limitations under strict human supervision. Concordance between AI-assisted and manual extraction was evaluated descriptively.
resultsOverall concordance between AI-assisted and manual data extraction was 82.5% (99/120) across assessed variables. Agreement was highest for structured variables, including study design (10/10; 100.0%), study identification variables (19/20; 95.0%), and participant characteristics (36/40; 90.0%). Agreement was lower for study content variables (18/30; 60.0%) and methodological appraisal (16/20; 80.0%). Among the 21 discrepancies, misclassification errors were most common (13/21; 61.9%), followed by omissions (3/21; 14.3%), incomplete data (3/21; 14.3%), and hallucinations (2/21; 9.5%). AI-assisted identification of methodological limitations showed substantial descriptive agreement with human assessments but demonstrated limited capacity for judgmental interpretations.
conclusionsArtificial intelligence demonstrated utility for structured review tasks such as data extraction and reporting appraisal, but showed limitations in tasks requiring interpretative and methodological judgement. Human oversight therefore remains essential throughout the review process. These findings derive from a single case study and should not be generalised beyond the evaluated context and AI tools.
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.