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 and EM...
| Main Authors: | , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
BMJ Publishing Group
2022-09-01
|
| Series: | BMJ Open |
| Online Access: | https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/12/9/e061519.full |
| _version_ | 1811275206568706048 |
|---|---|
| author | M A Rehman Siddiqui Rida Shahzad Bushra Ayub |
| author_facet | M A Rehman Siddiqui Rida Shahzad Bushra Ayub |
| author_sort | M A Rehman Siddiqui |
| collection | DOAJ |
| 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. |
| first_indexed | 2024-04-12T23:33:54Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-8677e5bddfd845b8bd6e651413ba1f8e |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 2044-6055 |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-04-12T23:33:54Z |
| publishDate | 2022-09-01 |
| publisher | BMJ Publishing Group |
| record_format | Article |
| series | BMJ Open |
| spelling | doaj.art-8677e5bddfd845b8bd6e651413ba1f8e2022-12-22T03:12:12ZengBMJ Publishing GroupBMJ Open2044-60552022-09-0112910.1136/bmjopen-2022-061519Quality of reporting of randomised controlled trials of artificial intelligence in healthcare: a systematic reviewM A Rehman Siddiqui0Rida Shahzad1Bushra Ayub2Department of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences, Aga Khan University Hospital, Karachi, PakistanDepartment of Ophthalmology, Shahzad Eye Hospital, Karachi, PakistanCentre for Clinical Best Practices, Aga Khan University Hospital, Karachi, PakistanObjectives 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.https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/12/9/e061519.full |
| spellingShingle | M A Rehman Siddiqui Rida Shahzad Bushra Ayub Quality of reporting of randomised controlled trials of artificial intelligence in healthcare: a systematic review BMJ Open |
| 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 |
| url | https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/12/9/e061519.full |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT marehmansiddiqui qualityofreportingofrandomisedcontrolledtrialsofartificialintelligenceinhealthcareasystematicreview AT ridashahzad qualityofreportingofrandomisedcontrolledtrialsofartificialintelligenceinhealthcareasystematicreview AT bushraayub qualityofreportingofrandomisedcontrolledtrialsofartificialintelligenceinhealthcareasystematicreview |