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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Shelmerdine, Susan Cheng, Arthurs, Owen J, Denniston, Alastair, Sebire, Neil J
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