Cargando…

Quality of reporting of randomised controlled trials of artificial intelligence in healthcare: a systematic review

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to evaluate the quality of reporting of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of artificial intelligence (AI) in healthcare against Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials—AI (CONSORT-AI) guidelines. DESIGN: Systematic review. DATA SOURCES: We searched PubMed a...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Shahzad, Rida, Ayub, Bushra, Siddiqui, M A Rehman
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BMJ Publishing Group 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9445816/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36691151
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2022-061519
_version_ 1784783505366974464
author Shahzad, Rida
Ayub, Bushra
Siddiqui, M A Rehman
author_facet Shahzad, Rida
Ayub, Bushra
Siddiqui, M A Rehman
author_sort Shahzad, Rida
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to evaluate the quality of reporting of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of artificial intelligence (AI) in healthcare against Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials—AI (CONSORT-AI) guidelines. DESIGN: Systematic review. DATA SOURCES: We searched PubMed and EMBASE databases for studies reported from January 2015 to December 2021. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: We included RCTs reported in English that used AI as the intervention. Protocols, conference abstracts, studies on robotics and studies related to medical education were excluded. DATA EXTRACTION: The included studies were graded using the CONSORT-AI checklist, comprising 43 items, by two independent graders. The results were tabulated and descriptive statistics were reported. RESULTS: We screened 1501 potential abstracts, of which 112 full-text articles were reviewed for eligibility. A total of 42 studies were included. The number of participants ranged from 22 to 2352. Only two items of the CONSORT-AI items were fully reported in all studies. Five items were not applicable in more than 85% of the studies. Nineteen per cent (8/42) of the studies did not report more than 50% (21/43) of the CONSORT-AI checklist items. CONCLUSIONS: The quality of reporting of RCTs in AI is suboptimal. As reporting is variable in existing RCTs, caution should be exercised in interpreting the findings of some studies.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9445816
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher BMJ Publishing Group
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-94458162022-09-14 Quality of reporting of randomised controlled trials of artificial intelligence in healthcare: a systematic review Shahzad, Rida Ayub, Bushra Siddiqui, M A Rehman BMJ Open Medical Publishing and Peer Review OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to evaluate the quality of reporting of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of artificial intelligence (AI) in healthcare against Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials—AI (CONSORT-AI) guidelines. DESIGN: Systematic review. DATA SOURCES: We searched PubMed and EMBASE databases for studies reported from January 2015 to December 2021. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: We included RCTs reported in English that used AI as the intervention. Protocols, conference abstracts, studies on robotics and studies related to medical education were excluded. DATA EXTRACTION: The included studies were graded using the CONSORT-AI checklist, comprising 43 items, by two independent graders. The results were tabulated and descriptive statistics were reported. RESULTS: We screened 1501 potential abstracts, of which 112 full-text articles were reviewed for eligibility. A total of 42 studies were included. The number of participants ranged from 22 to 2352. Only two items of the CONSORT-AI items were fully reported in all studies. Five items were not applicable in more than 85% of the studies. Nineteen per cent (8/42) of the studies did not report more than 50% (21/43) of the CONSORT-AI checklist items. CONCLUSIONS: The quality of reporting of RCTs in AI is suboptimal. As reporting is variable in existing RCTs, caution should be exercised in interpreting the findings of some studies. BMJ Publishing Group 2022-09-05 /pmc/articles/PMC9445816/ /pubmed/36691151 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2022-061519 Text en © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2022. 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 Medical Publishing and Peer Review
Shahzad, Rida
Ayub, Bushra
Siddiqui, M A Rehman
Quality of reporting of randomised controlled trials of artificial intelligence in healthcare: a systematic review
title Quality of reporting of randomised controlled trials of artificial intelligence in healthcare: a systematic review
title_full Quality of reporting of randomised controlled trials of artificial intelligence in healthcare: a systematic review
title_fullStr Quality of reporting of randomised controlled trials of artificial intelligence in healthcare: a systematic review
title_full_unstemmed Quality of reporting of randomised controlled trials of artificial intelligence in healthcare: a systematic review
title_short Quality of reporting of randomised controlled trials of artificial intelligence in healthcare: a systematic review
title_sort quality of reporting of randomised controlled trials of artificial intelligence in healthcare: a systematic review
topic Medical Publishing and Peer Review
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9445816/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36691151
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2022-061519
work_keys_str_mv AT shahzadrida qualityofreportingofrandomisedcontrolledtrialsofartificialintelligenceinhealthcareasystematicreview
AT ayubbushra qualityofreportingofrandomisedcontrolledtrialsofartificialintelligenceinhealthcareasystematicreview
AT siddiquimarehman qualityofreportingofrandomisedcontrolledtrialsofartificialintelligenceinhealthcareasystematicreview