Using artificial intelligence methods for systematic review in health sciences: A systematic review
- PMID: 35174972
- DOI: 10.1002/jrsm.1553
Using artificial intelligence methods for systematic review in health sciences: A systematic review
Abstract
The exponential increase in published articles makes a thorough and expedient review of literature increasingly challenging. This review delineated automated tools and platforms that employ artificial intelligence (AI) approaches and evaluated the reported benefits and challenges in using such methods. A search was conducted in 4 databases (Medline, Embase, CDSR, and Epistemonikos) up to April 2021 for systematic reviews and other related reviews implementing AI methods. To be included, the review must use any form of AI method, including machine learning, deep learning, neural network, or any other applications used to enable the full or semi-autonomous performance of one or more stages in the development of evidence synthesis. Twelve reviews were included, using nine different tools to implement 15 different AI methods. Eleven methods were used in the screening stages of the review (73%). The rest were divided: two in data extraction (13%) and two in risk of bias assessment (13%). The ambiguous benefits of the data extractions, combined with the reported advantages from 10 reviews, indicating that AI platforms have taken hold with varying success in evidence synthesis. However, the results are qualified by the reliance on the self-reporting of the review authors. Extensive human validation still appears required at this stage in implementing AI methods, though further evaluation is required to define the overall contribution of such platforms in enhancing efficiency and quality in evidence synthesis.
Keywords: artificial intelligence; evidence synthesis; machine learning; systematic reviews.
© 2022 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
References
REFERENCES
- 
    - Borah R, Brown AW, Capers PL, Kaiser KA. Analysis of the time and workers needed to conduct systematic reviews of medical interventions using data from the PROSPERO registry. BMJ Open. 2017;7(2):e012545.
 
- 
    - Yaffe J, Montgomery P, Hopewell S, Shepard LD. Empty reviews: a description and consideration of Cochrane systematic reviews with no included studies. PLoS One. 2012;7(5):e36626.
 
- 
    - Chollet F. Deep Learning with Python. Manning Publications Co; 2018:361.
 
- 
    - Gates A, Johnson C, Hartling L. Technology-assisted title and abstract screening for systematic reviews: a retrospective evaluation of the Abstrackr machine learning tool. Syst Rev. 2018;7(1):45.
 
- 
    - Giummarra MJ, Lau G, Gabbe BJ. Evaluation of text mining to reduce screening workload for injury-focused systematic reviews. Inj Prev J Int Soc Child Adolesc Inj Prev. 2020;26(1):55-60.
 
Publication types
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
- Full Text Sources
- Miscellaneous
 
        