We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
To save content items to your account,
please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies.
If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account.
Find out more about saving content to .
To save content items to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org
is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings
on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part
of your Kindle email address below.
Find out more about saving to your Kindle.
Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations.
‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi.
‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
The past decade has seen an exponential increase in peer-reviewed clinical research literature. Consequently, preparing and updating systematic literature reviews (SLRs) is more resource intensive and costly. Artificial intelligence (AI) could potentially accelerate SLR preparation. This study presents a review of evidence evaluating the accuracy of AI methods in SLR preparation and results of a case study using DistillerSR’s AI functionality.
Methods
The review was based on a search of MEDLINE, Embase, and Embase Preprints databases using title/abstract keywords and subject heading synonyms for AI, machine learning, natural language processing (NLP), and publication screening and selection. The protocol is published on PROSPERO (CRD42023452391). To supplement this review, we conducted a case study with DistillerSR’s AI tools. We applied the AI classifiers, which use NLP to learn patterns from multiple SLRs across several indications, which encompassed over 15,000 references’ titles and abstracts. We then compared those patterns with the human responses to build an AI model that can be applied to other references.
Results
The search identified 2,209 records. After deduplication, the titles/abstracts of 2,200 records were screened; of these, 79 full-text records were assessed. A total of 42 records met the eligibility criteria for inclusion. The majority were case studies. The most frequently reported tools were DistillerSR AI (n=9), Abstrackr (n=6), ASReview (n=2), and LiveSTART (n=2). The evidence showed efficiency gains, but accuracy varied across studies and AI tools. Results of the case study using DistillerSR’s AI tools indicated efficiency gains with adequate accuracy but with variability across different SLRs. Inclusion and exclusion of articles were consistent with the human decisions.
Conclusions
The findings of our review and case study indicated that AI can be used reliably in the screening of articles for SLRs and could improve efficiency. However, the evidence is still evolving, and additional studies are needed. There is a need for clear guidelines on the role of AI in study screening and selection for health technology assessments SLRs and submissions.
Recommend this
Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this to your organisation's collection.