Cargando…
Review of study reporting guidelines for clinical studies using artificial intelligence in healthcare
High-quality research is essential in guiding evidence-based care, and should be reported in a way that is reproducible, transparent and where appropriate, provide sufficient detail for inclusion in future meta-analyses. Reporting guidelines for various study designs have been widely used for clinic...
Autores principales: | , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BMJ Publishing Group
2021
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8383863/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34426417 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjhci-2021-100385 |
_version_ | 1783741820856958976 |
---|---|
author | Shelmerdine, Susan Cheng Arthurs, Owen J Denniston, Alastair Sebire, Neil J |
author_facet | Shelmerdine, Susan Cheng Arthurs, Owen J Denniston, Alastair Sebire, Neil J |
author_sort | Shelmerdine, Susan Cheng |
collection | PubMed |
description | High-quality research is essential in guiding evidence-based care, and should be reported in a way that is reproducible, transparent and where appropriate, provide sufficient detail for inclusion in future meta-analyses. Reporting guidelines for various study designs have been widely used for clinical (and preclinical) studies, consisting of checklists with a minimum set of points for inclusion. With the recent rise in volume of research using artificial intelligence (AI), additional factors need to be evaluated, which do not neatly conform to traditional reporting guidelines (eg, details relating to technical algorithm development). In this review, reporting guidelines are highlighted to promote awareness of essential content required for studies evaluating AI interventions in healthcare. These include published and in progress extensions to well-known reporting guidelines such as Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials-AI (study protocols), Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials-AI (randomised controlled trials), Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-AI (diagnostic accuracy studies) and Transparent Reporting of a multivariable prediction model for Individual Prognosis Or Diagnosis-AI (prediction model studies). Additionally there are a number of guidelines that consider AI for health interventions more generally (eg, Checklist for Artificial Intelligence in Medical Imaging (CLAIM), minimum information (MI)-CLAIM, MI for Medical AI Reporting) or address a specific element such as the ‘learning curve’ (Developmental and Exploratory Clinical Investigation of Decision-AI). Economic evaluation of AI health interventions is not currently addressed, and may benefit from extension to an existing guideline. In the face of a rapid influx of studies of AI health interventions, reporting guidelines help ensure that investigators and those appraising studies consider both the well-recognised elements of good study design and reporting, while also adequately addressing new challenges posed by AI-specific elements. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-8383863 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2021 |
publisher | BMJ Publishing Group |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-83838632021-09-09 Review of study reporting guidelines for clinical studies using artificial intelligence in healthcare Shelmerdine, Susan Cheng Arthurs, Owen J Denniston, Alastair Sebire, Neil J BMJ Health Care Inform Review High-quality research is essential in guiding evidence-based care, and should be reported in a way that is reproducible, transparent and where appropriate, provide sufficient detail for inclusion in future meta-analyses. Reporting guidelines for various study designs have been widely used for clinical (and preclinical) studies, consisting of checklists with a minimum set of points for inclusion. With the recent rise in volume of research using artificial intelligence (AI), additional factors need to be evaluated, which do not neatly conform to traditional reporting guidelines (eg, details relating to technical algorithm development). In this review, reporting guidelines are highlighted to promote awareness of essential content required for studies evaluating AI interventions in healthcare. These include published and in progress extensions to well-known reporting guidelines such as Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials-AI (study protocols), Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials-AI (randomised controlled trials), Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-AI (diagnostic accuracy studies) and Transparent Reporting of a multivariable prediction model for Individual Prognosis Or Diagnosis-AI (prediction model studies). Additionally there are a number of guidelines that consider AI for health interventions more generally (eg, Checklist for Artificial Intelligence in Medical Imaging (CLAIM), minimum information (MI)-CLAIM, MI for Medical AI Reporting) or address a specific element such as the ‘learning curve’ (Developmental and Exploratory Clinical Investigation of Decision-AI). Economic evaluation of AI health interventions is not currently addressed, and may benefit from extension to an existing guideline. In the face of a rapid influx of studies of AI health interventions, reporting guidelines help ensure that investigators and those appraising studies consider both the well-recognised elements of good study design and reporting, while also adequately addressing new challenges posed by AI-specific elements. BMJ Publishing Group 2021-08-23 /pmc/articles/PMC8383863/ /pubmed/34426417 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjhci-2021-100385 Text en © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2021. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited, appropriate credit is given, any changes made indicated, and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) . |
spellingShingle | Review Shelmerdine, Susan Cheng Arthurs, Owen J Denniston, Alastair Sebire, Neil J Review of study reporting guidelines for clinical studies using artificial intelligence in healthcare |
title | Review of study reporting guidelines for clinical studies using artificial intelligence in healthcare |
title_full | Review of study reporting guidelines for clinical studies using artificial intelligence in healthcare |
title_fullStr | Review of study reporting guidelines for clinical studies using artificial intelligence in healthcare |
title_full_unstemmed | Review of study reporting guidelines for clinical studies using artificial intelligence in healthcare |
title_short | Review of study reporting guidelines for clinical studies using artificial intelligence in healthcare |
title_sort | review of study reporting guidelines for clinical studies using artificial intelligence in healthcare |
topic | Review |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8383863/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34426417 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjhci-2021-100385 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT shelmerdinesusancheng reviewofstudyreportingguidelinesforclinicalstudiesusingartificialintelligenceinhealthcare AT arthursowenj reviewofstudyreportingguidelinesforclinicalstudiesusingartificialintelligenceinhealthcare AT dennistonalastair reviewofstudyreportingguidelinesforclinicalstudiesusingartificialintelligenceinhealthcare AT sebireneilj reviewofstudyreportingguidelinesforclinicalstudiesusingartificialintelligenceinhealthcare |