Artificial Intelligence (AI) Readiness to Support Evidence Synthesis by Workflow: Findings From a Review of Reviews.

IF 3.8 Q1 SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY
Campbell Systematic Reviews Pub Date : 2026-06-03 eCollection Date: 2026-06-01 DOI:10.1177/18911803261454702
Zijing Wei, Luyanda Ngongoma, Jose Cols, Arina L Bogdan, Ariel Lin, Claire Zhang, Yue Su, Nuno de Jesus Ximenes, Chloe Zhu, Yoav Ackerman, Heather L Bullock, Juhua Hu, Yanfang Su
{"title":"Artificial Intelligence (AI) Readiness to Support Evidence Synthesis by Workflow: Findings From a Review of Reviews.","authors":"Zijing Wei, Luyanda Ngongoma, Jose Cols, Arina L Bogdan, Ariel Lin, Claire Zhang, Yue Su, Nuno de Jesus Ximenes, Chloe Zhu, Yoav Ackerman, Heather L Bullock, Juhua Hu, Yanfang Su","doi":"10.1177/18911803261454702","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Evidence synthesis is crucial for informing evidence-based practice across various fields. However, the traditional methodology is resource-intensive, and its findings can be outdated before publication. There is a growing trend toward integrating automation and artificial intelligence (AI) approaches into evidence synthesis to enhance efficiency, but standardized adoption is still pending.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>The goal of this study is to identify peer-reviewed evidence documenting AI readiness for evidence synthesis.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We searched MEDLINE, Embase, and Global Index Medicus in May 2025 to identify review articles that evaluated evidence synthesis tools. Relevant study reviews and tool reviews published in English between January 2020 and May 2025 were included in our review of reviews. Tool features and performance metrics were extracted according to stages of the evidence synthesis workflow, including search, screening, appraisal, extraction, and synthesis.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We included 21 studies in our review of reviews and identified 46 evidence synthesis tools. Nine tools supported all five stages of the evidence synthesis workflow, among which DistillerSR covered the most workflow-supporting features (19 out of 21). Ten of the identified tools reported sensitivity rates for AI-powered title/abstract screening, all of which achieved <math><mo>≥</mo> <mn>95</mn> <mi>%</mi></math> sensitivity in at least one configuration. Reported sensitivity rates of EPPI-Reviewer, Research Screener and SWIFT-Active Screener consistently reached the 95% threshold with varying degrees of automation.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>This review found peer-reviewed evidence supporting AI readiness for human-supervised automation of title/abstract screening. However, evidence documenting AI readiness for other evidence synthesis tasks remains limited. DistillerSR and EPPI-Reviewer demonstrated the broadest feature support and strong evidence for AI-powered title/abstract screening. Our study highlights the potential of AI to improve efficiency while maintaining high sensitivity in the screening stage. AI-powered screening may serve as a critical first step toward scaling rapid reviews into living evidence syntheses.</p>","PeriodicalId":36698,"journal":{"name":"Campbell Systematic Reviews","volume":"22 2","pages":"18911803261454702"},"PeriodicalIF":3.8000,"publicationDate":"2026-06-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13251836/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Campbell Systematic Reviews","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/18911803261454702","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2026/6/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Evidence synthesis is crucial for informing evidence-based practice across various fields. However, the traditional methodology is resource-intensive, and its findings can be outdated before publication. There is a growing trend toward integrating automation and artificial intelligence (AI) approaches into evidence synthesis to enhance efficiency, but standardized adoption is still pending.

Objective: The goal of this study is to identify peer-reviewed evidence documenting AI readiness for evidence synthesis.

Methods: We searched MEDLINE, Embase, and Global Index Medicus in May 2025 to identify review articles that evaluated evidence synthesis tools. Relevant study reviews and tool reviews published in English between January 2020 and May 2025 were included in our review of reviews. Tool features and performance metrics were extracted according to stages of the evidence synthesis workflow, including search, screening, appraisal, extraction, and synthesis.

Results: We included 21 studies in our review of reviews and identified 46 evidence synthesis tools. Nine tools supported all five stages of the evidence synthesis workflow, among which DistillerSR covered the most workflow-supporting features (19 out of 21). Ten of the identified tools reported sensitivity rates for AI-powered title/abstract screening, all of which achieved ≥ 95 % sensitivity in at least one configuration. Reported sensitivity rates of EPPI-Reviewer, Research Screener and SWIFT-Active Screener consistently reached the 95% threshold with varying degrees of automation.

Conclusion: This review found peer-reviewed evidence supporting AI readiness for human-supervised automation of title/abstract screening. However, evidence documenting AI readiness for other evidence synthesis tasks remains limited. DistillerSR and EPPI-Reviewer demonstrated the broadest feature support and strong evidence for AI-powered title/abstract screening. Our study highlights the potential of AI to improve efficiency while maintaining high sensitivity in the screening stage. AI-powered screening may serve as a critical first step toward scaling rapid reviews into living evidence syntheses.

人工智能(AI)准备通过工作流支持证据合成:来自综述的发现。
背景:证据综合对于为各个领域的循证实践提供信息至关重要。然而,传统的方法是资源密集型的,其结果可能在发表之前就过时了。越来越多的趋势是将自动化和人工智能(AI)方法集成到证据合成中以提高效率,但标准化的采用仍有待实现。目的:本研究的目的是确定同行评审的证据,记录人工智能为证据合成做好了准备。方法:检索MEDLINE、Embase和全球医学索引(Global Index Medicus)于2025年5月检索的评价证据合成工具的综述文章。2020年1月至2025年5月期间发表的相关英文研究综述和工具综述被纳入我们的综述综述。根据证据合成工作流程的各个阶段提取工具特征和性能指标,包括搜索、筛选、评估、提取和合成。结果:我们在综述中纳入了21项研究,并确定了46种证据合成工具。9个工具支持证据合成工作流的所有5个阶段,其中DistillerSR涵盖了大多数支持工作流的功能(21个中的19个)。10个确定的工具报告了人工智能标题/摘要筛选的敏感性,所有这些工具在至少一个配置中都达到了≥95%的敏感性。EPPI-Reviewer、Research Screener和SWIFT-Active Screener的报告敏感性均达到95%阈值,自动化程度不同。结论:本综述发现了同行评审的证据,支持人工智能为人类监督的标题/摘要筛选自动化做好了准备。然而,证明人工智能为其他证据合成任务做好准备的证据仍然有限。DistillerSR和EPPI-Reviewer展示了最广泛的功能支持和ai驱动的标题/摘要筛选的有力证据。我们的研究强调了人工智能在提高效率的同时,在筛选阶段保持高灵敏度的潜力。人工智能筛选可能是将快速审查扩展到活证据合成的关键第一步。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Campbell Systematic Reviews
Campbell Systematic Reviews Social Sciences-Social Sciences (all)
CiteScore
5.50
自引率
21.90%
发文量
80
审稿时长
6 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书