Campbell Systematic Reviews最新文献

{"title":"Health and Social Care Interventions in the 80 years Old and Over Population: An Evidence and Gap Map.","authors":"Rebecca Abbott, Alison Bethel, Jo Thompson Coon, Morwenna Rogers, Rebecca Whear, Noreen Orr, Ruth Garside, Victoria A Goodwin, Aseel Mahmoud, Ilianna Lourida, Debbie Cheeseman","doi":"10.1177/18911803261462104","DOIUrl":"10.1177/18911803261462104","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Worldwide, the population is ageing. As the population ages, so does the prevalence of age-related diseases such as arthritis, osteoporosis, diabetes, hypertension, cancer and dementia, increasing the demand on health and social care services. The evidence underpinning treatments and interventions for most health and social care issues is derived from populations younger than 80 years of age because this age group is often excluded from taking part in clinical trials. This raises concerns that many established treatments may not be the most suitable or effective approach for those aged 80 years or more.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>Our aim was to produce an interactive evidence and gap map to provide an overview of the volume, diversity and nature of the evidence on health and social care interventions that target adults over 80 years of age.</p><p><strong>Search methods: </strong>We searched 18 databases: Medline, PsycINFO, HMIC, Social Policy and Practice, Ageline, CINAHL Complete, ASSIA, PQDT; Epistemonikos; Cochrane, CENTRAL, Campbell systematic reviews, Web of Science, SCI, SSCI, AHCI, CPCI-S, CPCI-SSH, and ESCI (in October 2022). Searches were updated in July 2024. Forward and backward citation searching was also undertaken in 2024 using CiteSearch, Scopus and Google Scholar.</p><p><strong>Selection criteria: </strong>We included systematic reviews, randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and primary qualitative studies in the map that focused on the effectiveness and/or experience of any health or social care interventions for adults aged 80 years or more. All studies were independently screened for eligibility by two people at both title/abstract and full text stages.</p><p><strong>Data collection and analysis: </strong>Interventions were categorised in line with the WHO definition of five domains that facilitate healthy ageing: building and maintaining intrinsic capacity, health services models and approaches, enabling environments and technologies, building and maintaining relationships and learning, growing and making decisions. Interventions could cut across multiple domains. The data extraction tool was developed on EPPI reviewer and was modified and tested through piloting and revising by the core team. The tool was informed by the research question and the structure of the map. As well as extracting data on population characteristics, intervention domain and sub-categories, we extracted additional data to enable filters, such as specific health conditions, and equity characteristics. Standardised tools were used to assess study quality for all studies: AMSTAR-2 for systematic reviews; Cochrane Risk of Bias tool (version 1) for RCTs; and the Wallace criteria for primary qualitative studies. Data extraction and quality appraisal were extracted by one person and checked by a second.</p><p><strong>Main results: </strong>We included 172 studies: 36 systematic reviews, 120 RCTs and 16 primary qualitative","PeriodicalId":36698,"journal":{"name":"Campbell Systematic Reviews","volume":"22 2","pages":"18911803261462104"},"PeriodicalIF":3.8,"publicationDate":"2026-06-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13305380/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"148346686","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"PROTOCOL: Utilisation of Genetics and Genomics in Primary Care: Protocol for an Evidence and Gap Map.","authors":"Braulio Mark Valencia, Jialing Lin, Rafal Chomik, Chris Dietz, Shona Bates, Peter Brown, Limin Mao, Patricia Mary Davidson, Marc R Wilkins, Alexandra Martiniuk, Michael Kidd, Vikash Ranjan Keshri","doi":"10.1177/18911803261463184","DOIUrl":"10.1177/18911803261463184","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>This protocol describes a Campbell evidence and gap map designed to visually map existing evidence on the application of genetic and genomic testing in primary care. Beyond outlining the rationale and motivation, this protocol details the methodological steps and rigorous criteria that will guide its development. These include: 1) conducting a systematic search to identify published literature on the use of genetic and genomic testing in primary care; 2) summarising and visually mapping the available evidence; and 3) identifying gaps in the current evidence base to inform future research priorities and policy directions. The resulting map is expected to provide a rigorous yet accessible tool for researchers, practitioners, and policymakers seeking to assess the current evidence landscape and identify opportunities to integrate genetics and genomics into routine healthcare delivery.</p>","PeriodicalId":36698,"journal":{"name":"Campbell Systematic Reviews","volume":"22 2","pages":"18911803261463184"},"PeriodicalIF":3.8,"publicationDate":"2026-06-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13305726/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"148346622","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Don't Let the Evidence Die: From Rapid to Living Reviews, Experiences From the Global South.","authors":"Kinlabel Okwen Tetamiyaka Tezok, Ernest Alang Wung, Gloria Akah Ndum Okwen, Nain Mirabel Yuh, Okwen Chanice Fri, Alvin Lontum, Merveille Miriam Ongolo, Ngong Julius Fenji, Mbah Patrick Okwen","doi":"10.1177/18911803261462152","DOIUrl":"10.1177/18911803261462152","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Timely and contextually relevant evidence is essential for decision-making in policy domains, especially during crisis or outbreaks like the COVID-19 pandemic. While systematic reviews provide methodological rigor, their cost and duration limit their policy utility. Rapid reviews offer a pragmatic alternative but are typically static and quickly become outdated as new studies, grey literature, and local knowledge emerge, leading to duplication of effort and losing track of policy decisions and use of evidence. This paper presents a pragmatic framework for converting rapid reviews into living evidence synthesis (LES) systems within policy contexts, especially in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). Drawing on the experience of eBASE Africa, the framework demonstrates how LES functions can be incrementally embedded within conventional rapid-review workflows. It integrates PRISMA-aligned methods with continuous evidence surveillance across academic literature, grey literature, and non-traditional evidence sources such as social media and Indigenous Ways of Knowing, treating these as structured and systematically incorporated evidence streams, supported by responsible use of artificial intelligence and digital tools with human oversight. The framework reconceptualizes rapid reviews as entry points to living evidence systems, offering a scalable pathway to improve efficiency, continuity, and policy relevance, particularly in LMIC settings.</p>","PeriodicalId":36698,"journal":{"name":"Campbell Systematic Reviews","volume":"22 2","pages":"18911803261462152"},"PeriodicalIF":3.8,"publicationDate":"2026-06-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13305383/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"148346619","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"PROTOCOL: Interventions Targeting Misinformation, Disinformation and Malinformation for Reducing and Countering Violent Extremism: A Systematic Review.","authors":"Cátia Moreira de Carvalho, João Pedro Ramos, Catarina Simas, Pedro Barbosa, Sarah Carthy, Marta Pinto","doi":"10.1177/18911803261459099","DOIUrl":"10.1177/18911803261459099","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The dissemination of false or inaccurate information, and its subsequent effect on behaviour, is not a new phenomenon. However, in recent years, alongside the emergence of multiple methods of information transmission, the speed, scale and volume of mis-, dis-, and malinformation (MDM) has reached a new threshold, contributing to societal polarisation and mistrust towards authorities. It has been postulated that the phenomenon may also play a role in the psychosocial process of <i>radicalisation</i>. By re-framing grievances or events and creating shared identities or networks amongst 'believers', exposure to MDM may interact with other audience vulnerabilities to facilitate radicalisation towards violent extremist narratives and networks. This systematic review will examine interventions designed to counter or reduce the effects of exposure to false information and their impact on violent extremism. The review will synthesise evidence across diverse methodologies and settings, identify gaps in the literature, and highlight best practices for reducing or countering the effects of false narratives and their subsequent influence on violent extremist behaviour and attitudes. The findings will inform policymakers, educators, and practitioners about actionable measures to combat the harmful consequences of false information in the context of violent extremism.</p>","PeriodicalId":36698,"journal":{"name":"Campbell Systematic Reviews","volume":"22 2","pages":"18911803261459099"},"PeriodicalIF":3.8,"publicationDate":"2026-06-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13305521/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"148346643","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Reasons why Mothers Choose Human Milk as Their Method of Infant Nutrition: A Mixed Methods Systematic Review Protocol.","authors":"Niamh Ryan, Patricia Leahy Warren, Siobhain M O'Mahony, Helen Mulcahy, Lloyd Frank Philpott","doi":"10.1177/18911803261462950","DOIUrl":"10.1177/18911803261462950","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Human milk is a complex, dynamic, living biological fluid uniquely tailored to meet the nutritional needs of the human species. In addition to this it also has a protective role in health by providing beneficial microbes and prebiotic oligosaccharides that aid in developing the neonatal gut microbiome, and by containing immune molecules that help regulate long-term inflammatory responses. Despite growing evidence of human milk's composition and benefits, breastfeeding rates remain low in many countries. Some studies suggest that understanding the health benefits and composition of human milk may increase a mother's motivation to breastfeed or provide human milk. However, first it is necessary to summarize and synthesize the available data on maternal reasons for providing human milk in any form to their infants, to examine the evidence in this area.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A mixed method systematic review will be conducted including qualitative, quantitative, and primary mixed-methods studies that explore the reasons why mothers choose breastmilk as their method of infant nutrition. The PICo framework will inform the search strategy including five databases CINAHL Complete (EBSCOhost), Medline (PubMed), Web of Science and Scopus (Elsevier) from inception to date of searching. Following screening the quality of the studies will be assessed using the standardized JBI critical appraisal tools, selected based on each study's methodology. Data extraction will follow the JBI mixed methods data extraction form, and will involve data transformation, synthesis, and integration. This systematic review will adopt a convergent integrated approach in line with JBI guidelines.</p><p><strong>Protocol registration: </strong>Registered with Prospero (CRD42024586984).</p>","PeriodicalId":36698,"journal":{"name":"Campbell Systematic Reviews","volume":"22 2","pages":"18911803261462950"},"PeriodicalIF":3.8,"publicationDate":"2026-06-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13294536/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"148346710","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"PROTOCOL: Barriers and Facilitators to the Adoption of Speech-Based Cognitive Screening Tools: A Protocol for Systematic Review of Qualitative Evidence.","authors":"Ravi Shankar, Vahul Sundar, Karen Sui Geok Chua","doi":"10.1177/18911803261460855","DOIUrl":"10.1177/18911803261460855","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Cognitive impairment, including conditions like dementia, is a growing public health concern as the global population ages. Early detection and diagnosis are critical for optimal management and support. Speech-based cognitive screening tools have emerged as a promising alternative to traditional methods, leveraging advances in natural language processing and machine learning to analyze speech samples for signs of cognitive decline. Despite their potential, the adoption of speech-based screening tools in clinical practice has been slow. This systematic review protocol outlines a plan to synthesize qualitative evidence on the barriers and facilitators to the adoption of speech-based cognitive screening tools. The review will follow the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines and the Enhancing Transparency in Reporting the Synthesis of Qualitative Research (ENTREQ) statement. Eleven electronic databases will be searched: PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, CINAHL, MEDLINE (via Ovid), The Cochrane Library, Campbell Collaboration Library, PsycINFO, Scopus, IEEE Xplore, and ACM Digital Library. Two reviewers will independently screen studies using Covidence software, extract data, assess methodological quality using the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP) qualitative checklist, and evaluate confidence in the evidence using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation-Confidence in the Evidence from Reviews of Qualitative Research (GRADE-CERQual) approach. Thematic synthesis will be used to analyze the evidence. The results will provide insights to inform the development, evaluation, and implementation of speech-based cognitive screening tools, ultimately improving early detection and care for individuals with cognitive impairment.</p>","PeriodicalId":36698,"journal":{"name":"Campbell Systematic Reviews","volume":"22 2","pages":"18911803261460855"},"PeriodicalIF":3.8,"publicationDate":"2026-06-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13270038/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"148273262","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Protocol: Long Distance Walking and Psychosocial Health and Wellbeing: A Scoping Review.","authors":"Hind Sabri, Elizabeth Tanjong Ghogomu, Victoria Barbeau, Tracey Howe, Howard White, Yanfei Li, Qian Liu, Weize Kong, Nina Dela Cruz, Vivian Welch","doi":"10.1177/18911803261439277","DOIUrl":"10.1177/18911803261439277","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>This is the protocol for a scoping review. The objectives are as follows: The aim of this scoping review is to assess the extent of the evidence of long-distance walking, defined as 20 km/12 miles or more, on physical and psychosocial outcomes in adults. Specific research questions are as follows: (1) What types of physical and psychosocial outcomes have been assessed in studies of long-distance walking in adults? (2) What types of study designs have been conducted on long-distance walking? (3) What characteristics of walking have been assessed in these studies, e.g. frequency, terrain, climate, companionship? (4) What types of people have been included in these studies (e.g., countries, age, gender or sex or other characteristics)?</p>","PeriodicalId":36698,"journal":{"name":"Campbell Systematic Reviews","volume":"22 2","pages":"18911803261439277"},"PeriodicalIF":3.8,"publicationDate":"2026-06-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13251829/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"148228589","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Barriers and Facilitators to the Implementation of the Diabetes Prevention Program (DPP) in Health Settings: Protocol for a Mixed Methods Systematic Review.","authors":"Miquel Colom-Rosselló, Manuela Abbate, Laura Capitán-Moyano, Elena Pastor-Ramon, Maria E Fernández, Aina M Yañez, Miquel Bennasar-Veny","doi":"10.1177/18911803261458193","DOIUrl":"10.1177/18911803261458193","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>This is the protocol of a Campbell Systematic Review. The objectives are as follows: to identify implementation determinants from the perspectives of both participants and implementers, and to assess their influence on specific implementation outcomes, thereby clarifying why certain aspects of the implementation process succeed or fail. If sufficient data is available, variations in perceived barriers or facilitators related to individuals and program characteristics will also be explored.</p>","PeriodicalId":36698,"journal":{"name":"Campbell Systematic Reviews","volume":"22 2","pages":"18911803261458193"},"PeriodicalIF":3.8,"publicationDate":"2026-06-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13251839/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"148228434","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"The Effects of Land Management Policies on the Environment and People in Low- and Middle-Income Countries: A Systematic Review.","authors":"Pierre Marion, Ingunn Storhaug, Sanghwa Lee, Lucas Sempé, Claudia Romero, Constanza Gonzalez Parrao, Birte Snilstveit","doi":"10.1177/18911803261435887","DOIUrl":"10.1177/18911803261435887","url":null,"abstract":"&lt;p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;b&gt;Background:&lt;/b&gt; Widespread land degradation is driven by unsustainable land use and human pressures, and is accelerating climate change and biodiversity loss. Access to land is also essential for livelihoods and well-being, particularly in low- and middle-income countries (L&MICs). Urgent and inclusive land management interventions are needed to mitigate climate impacts, preserve biodiversity, and support vulnerable communities. Governments and international organisations are increasingly promoting land management interventions, such as establishing protected areas, granting land rights and decentralising land management and monitoring. These efforts aim to enable the realisation of several of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (KMGBF). The environmental and human development impacts of these interventions, and especially their potential interactions, remain under-researched. This synthesis of the literature can help to inform policy and research decisions in these contexts. &lt;b&gt;Objectives:&lt;/b&gt; The purpose of this systematic review was to appraise and synthesise evidence of the effects of three types of land management interventions (community-based or decentralised land management and monitoring, land rights, and protected areas) on environmental and human well-being outcomes in L&MICs. We examined how these effects vary across geographical and social contexts. We also discussed the barriers, enablers, and trade-offs between environmental and human well-being outcomes that impact the effectiveness of the specified interventions. Lastly, we aimed to synthesise cost evidence of included projects. &lt;b&gt;Search methods:&lt;/b&gt; The search of included studies was based on the evidence gathered in the Climate Change and Biodiversity Evidence Gap Map (CCB EGM, Marion et al., 2024). The CCB EGM displayed the available rigorous evidence on the effects of climate change and biodiversity interventions on environmental and human well-being outcomes in L&MICs. The systematic search of studies was conducted in March 2024. &lt;b&gt;Selection criteria:&lt;/b&gt; From the CCB EGM, we focused on impact evaluations of projects which covered three types of land management interventions in L&MICs: (1) community-based or decentralised land management and monitoring; (2) land rights; and (3) protected areas. In this review, we considered studies published after 2000 that reported intervention effects on both environmental and human well-being outcome groups, aiming to identify possible trade-offs, synergies, and unintended consequences of these land management interventions. &lt;b&gt;Data collection, and analysis:&lt;/b&gt; We identified 64 papers representing 58 unique studies. These impact evaluations assessed 60 projects across 26 L&MICs, reporting effects on both environmental and human well-being outcomes. Two independent reviewers conducted the data extraction and risk of bias assessments of projects' effects. With the avail","PeriodicalId":36698,"journal":{"name":"Campbell Systematic Reviews","volume":"22 2","pages":"18911803261435887"},"PeriodicalIF":3.8,"publicationDate":"2026-06-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13251849/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"148228651","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"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":"10.1177/18911803261454702","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":3.8,"publicationDate":"2026-06-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13251836/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"148228475","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}