{"title":"A systematic literature review (SLR) on the adoption of artificial intelligence-assisted SLRS: implications for health technology assessments.","authors":"Seye Abogunrin, Yifei Liu, Clarissa Higuchi Zerbini","doi":"10.1017/S0266462326103535","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>Systematic literature reviews (SLRs) are essential for evidence synthesis in healthcare decision making, including health technology assessment (HTA), but their time and resource demands are substantial. Artificial intelligence (AI) may enhance efficiency of conducting SLRs, but its acceptance by HTA bodies remains underexplored. This SLR quantifies published health-related SLRs reporting AI use, identifies AI tools used at each SLR stage, and evaluates HTA guidance on AI in evidence synthesis.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We searched Embase, Medline, and the Cochrane Library (up to 9 September 2025), supplemented by hand searches and reviews of HTA agency websites. Titles and abstracts were screened in Rayyan by a single reviewer, with full-text review confirming eligibility. Data were extracted and synthesized narratively along key themes.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>In total, 112 studies covering 111 unique SLRs were identified, reporting 134 implementations of 45 unique AI tools (29 publicly available; 16 custom-built). AI use has risen since 2013 and was most frequently applied during title and abstract screening (88 of the 134 implementations). Human oversight remained essential, with no fully autonomous AI reported. Three HTA agencies (CDA-AMC, IQWiG, NICE), EUnetHTA, JBI and Cochrane have provided guidance, indicating the formal integration of AI into HTA processes.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>This SLR provides a quantitative overview of AI use in health-related SLRs and current HTA guidance. These findings may inform development of clearer methodological recommendations and support integration of AI-assisted evidence synthesis in HTA submissions. Further research and policy development are needed to optimize its role in evidence synthesis and healthcare decision making.</p>","PeriodicalId":14467,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care","volume":" ","pages":"e29"},"PeriodicalIF":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2026-02-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13071852/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/S0266462326103535","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Objectives: Systematic literature reviews (SLRs) are essential for evidence synthesis in healthcare decision making, including health technology assessment (HTA), but their time and resource demands are substantial. Artificial intelligence (AI) may enhance efficiency of conducting SLRs, but its acceptance by HTA bodies remains underexplored. This SLR quantifies published health-related SLRs reporting AI use, identifies AI tools used at each SLR stage, and evaluates HTA guidance on AI in evidence synthesis.
Methods: We searched Embase, Medline, and the Cochrane Library (up to 9 September 2025), supplemented by hand searches and reviews of HTA agency websites. Titles and abstracts were screened in Rayyan by a single reviewer, with full-text review confirming eligibility. Data were extracted and synthesized narratively along key themes.
Results: In total, 112 studies covering 111 unique SLRs were identified, reporting 134 implementations of 45 unique AI tools (29 publicly available; 16 custom-built). AI use has risen since 2013 and was most frequently applied during title and abstract screening (88 of the 134 implementations). Human oversight remained essential, with no fully autonomous AI reported. Three HTA agencies (CDA-AMC, IQWiG, NICE), EUnetHTA, JBI and Cochrane have provided guidance, indicating the formal integration of AI into HTA processes.
Conclusions: This SLR provides a quantitative overview of AI use in health-related SLRs and current HTA guidance. These findings may inform development of clearer methodological recommendations and support integration of AI-assisted evidence synthesis in HTA submissions. Further research and policy development are needed to optimize its role in evidence synthesis and healthcare decision making.
期刊介绍：
International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care serves as a forum for the wide range of health policy makers and professionals interested in the economic, social, ethical, medical and public health implications of health technology. It covers the development, evaluation, diffusion and use of health technology, as well as its impact on the organization and management of health care systems and public health. In addition to general essays and research reports, regular columns on technology assessment reports and thematic sections are published.
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
