Is Artificial Intelligence Replacing Humans in Systematic Literature Reviews? A Systematic Literature Review

Author:

Queiros Luisa1,Mearns Elizabeth S2,McCarvil Mary Susan1ORCID,Alarcão Joana1,Garcia Maria João1,Abògúnr̀in Ṣẹ̀yẹ1ORCID

Affiliation:

1. F Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd: F Hoffmann-La Roche AG

2. Genentech USA Inc South San Francisco

Abstract

Abstract Background Systematic literature reviews (SLRs) seek to answer research questions and form comprehensive, rigorous evidence-based conclusions. However, SLRs are resource-intensive. Multiple SLR applications provide artificial intelligence (AI)-as-a-service capabilities (e.g. EPPI-Reviewer, DistillerSR, Abstrackr) aimed at reducing this workload. The primary objective of our SLR was to assess whether and how researchers employ the AI component of these applications in published SLRs. Methods MEDLINE and EMBASE were searched in June 2021 for SLRs that utilized AI. SLRs and scoping reviews were eligible if they addressed human healthcare-related questions and reported the use of AI or AI-as-a-service applications (AIsAPP) in any step. Rayyan was used for abstract and full-text screening. Backwards citation-tracking and hand-searching were completed. Data were abstracted into Google Sheets and used to summarize key characteristics of included studies in frequency tables and figures. Results In the fifty-six studies included, the most frequently utilized AIsAPPs were Rayyan (n = 22) DistillerSR (n = 11) and EPPI reviewer (n = 9). Only 16 studies provided details on the automation process; thirteen used AI for semi-automation, two for full-automation, and for one study it was not clear how automation was used. Semi-automation was mainly used for screening (n = 12) and extraction (n = 2). Full automation was used for abstract screening in two studies. Conclusions Few SLRs reported utilizing AI in the SLR process. Contrary to recommendations in current PRISMA guidelines, details on automation steps were rarely described. Transparently reporting how AI is used during the conduct of an SLR could aid decision-makers with the adoption of such technologies as standard practice. Further research should evaluate the limitations and barriers to incorporating and reporting the use of AI as standard in SLRs.

Publisher

Research Square Platform LLC

Reference43 articles.

1. Higgins JPT, Thomas J, Chandler J, Cumpston M, Li T, Page MJ, Welch VA, editors. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions version 6.3 (updated February 2022). Cochrane, 2022. Available from www.training.cochrane.org/handbook.

2. Analysis of the time and workers needed to conduct systematic reviews of medical interventions using data from the PROSPERO registry;Borah R;BMJ Open,2017

3. Wasted research when systematic reviews fail to provide a complete and up-to-date evidence synthesis: the example of lung cancer;Créquit P;BMC Med,2016

4. Toward systematic review automation: a practical guide to using machine learning tools in research synthesis;Marshall IJ;Syst Rev,2019

5. Making progress with the automation of systematic reviews: principles of the International Collaboration for the Automation of Systematic Reviews (ICASR);Beller E;Syst Rev,2018

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3