Dies ist eine Übersichtsseite mit Metadaten zu dieser wissenschaftlichen Arbeit. Der vollständige Artikel ist beim Verlag verfügbar.
Cochrane Evaluation of (Semi-) Automated Review Methods (CESAR): Protocol for an adaptive platform study within reviews
0
Zitationen
18
Autoren
2026
Jahr
Abstract
Abstract Background Artificial intelligence (AI) has the potential to improve the efficiency of evidence synthesis and reduce human error. However, robust methods for evaluating rapidly evolving AI tools within the practical workflows of evidence synthesis remain underdeveloped. This protocol describes a study design for assessing the effectiveness, efficiency, and usability of AI tools in comparison to traditional human-only workflows in the context of Cochrane systematic reviews. Methods Members of the Cochrane Evaluation of (Semi-) Automated Review (CESAR) Methods Project developed an adaptive platform study-within-a-review (SWAR) design, modeled after clinical platform trials. This design employs a master protocol to concurrently evaluate multiple AI tools (interventions) against a standard human-only process (control) across three key review tasks: title and abstract screening, full-text screening, and data extraction. The adaptive framework allows for the addition or removal of AI tools based on interim performance analyses without necessitating a restart of the study. Performance will be assessed using metrics such as accuracy (sensitivity, specificity, precision), efficiency (time on task), response stability, impact of errors, and usability, in alignment with Responsible use of AI in evidence SynthEsis (RAISE) principles. Results The study will generate comparative data about the performance and usability of specific AI tools employed in a semi- or fully automated manner relative to standard human effort. The protocol provides a flexible framework for the assessment of AI tools in evidence synthesis, addressing the limitations of static, one-time evaluations. Discussion This study protocol presents a novel methodological approach to addressing the challenges of evaluating AI tools for evidence syntheses. By validating entire workflows rather than individual technologies, the findings will establish an evidence base for determining the viability of integrating AI into evidence-synthesis workflows. The adaptive design of this study is flexible and can be adopted by other investigators, ensuring that the evaluation framework remains relevant as new tools emerge.
Ähnliche Arbeiten
The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews
2021 · 89.486 Zit.
Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement
2009 · 83.032 Zit.
The Measurement of Observer Agreement for Categorical Data
1977 · 77.789 Zit.
Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement
2009 · 63.409 Zit.
Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses
2003 · 62.069 Zit.