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...
Autores principales: | , , |
---|---|
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 |