1
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares

      Submit your digital health research with an established publisher
      - celebrating 25 years of open access

      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Reporting Quality of AI Intervention in Randomized Controlled Trials in Primary Care: Systematic Review and Meta-Epidemiological Study

      review-article

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          The surge in artificial intelligence (AI) interventions in primary care trials lacks a study on reporting quality.

          Objective

          This study aimed to systematically evaluate the reporting quality of both published randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and protocols for RCTs that investigated AI interventions in primary care.

          Methods

          PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, Web of Science, and CINAHL databases were searched for RCTs and protocols on AI interventions in primary care until November 2024. Eligible studies were published RCTs or full protocols for RCTs exploring AI interventions in primary care. The reporting quality was assessed using CONSORT-AI (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials–Artificial Intelligence) and SPIRIT-AI (Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials–Artificial Intelligence) checklists, focusing on AI intervention–related items.

          Results

          A total of 11,711 records were identified. In total, 19 published RCTs and 21 RCT protocols for 35 trials were included. The overall proportion of adequately reported items was 65% (172/266; 95% CI 59%-70%) and 68% (214/315; 95% CI 62%-73%) for RCTs and protocols, respectively. The percentage of RCTs and protocols that reported a specific item ranged from 11% (2/19) to 100% (19/19) and from 10% (2/21) to 100% (21/21), respectively. The reporting of both RCTs and protocols exhibited similar characteristics and trends. They both lack transparency and completeness, which can be summarized in three aspects: without providing adequate information regarding the input data, without mentioning the methods for identifying and analyzing performance errors, and without stating whether and how the AI intervention and its code can be accessed.

          Conclusions

          The reporting quality could be improved in both RCTs and protocols. This study helps promote the transparent and complete reporting of trials with AI interventions in primary care.

          Related collections

          Most cited references74

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found
          Is Open Access

          Performance of ChatGPT on USMLE: Potential for AI-assisted medical education using large language models

          We evaluated the performance of a large language model called ChatGPT on the United States Medical Licensing Exam (USMLE), which consists of three exams: Step 1, Step 2CK, and Step 3. ChatGPT performed at or near the passing threshold for all three exams without any specialized training or reinforcement. Additionally, ChatGPT demonstrated a high level of concordance and insight in its explanations. These results suggest that large language models may have the potential to assist with medical education, and potentially, clinical decision-making.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            The practical implementation of artificial intelligence technologies in medicine

            The development of artificial intelligence (AI)-based technologies in medicine is advancing rapidly, but real-world clinical implementation has not yet become a reality. Here we review some of the key practical issues surrounding the implementation of AI into existing clinical workflows, including data sharing and privacy, transparency of algorithms, data standardization, and interoperability across multiple platforms, and concern for patient safety. We summarize the current regulatory environment in the United States and highlight comparisons with other regions in the world, notably Europe and China.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: not found
              • Article: not found

              ChatGPT: five priorities for research

                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Journal
                J Med Internet Res
                J Med Internet Res
                JMIR
                Journal of Medical Internet Research
                JMIR Publications (Toronto, Canada )
                1439-4456
                1438-8871
                2025
                25 February 2025
                : 27
                : e56774
                Affiliations
                [1 ] School of General Practice and Continuing Education Capital Medical University Beijing China
                Author notes
                Corresponding Author: Yafang Huang yafang@ 123456ccmu.edu.cn
                Author information
                https://orcid.org/0009-0003-2932-5490
                https://orcid.org/0009-0001-3515-9017
                https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4396-3870
                Article
                v27i1e56774
                10.2196/56774
                11897677
                39998876
                d3ccc195-fb4f-49b8-83a5-1db210c0a0ff
                ©Jinjia Zhong, Ting Zhu, Yafang Huang. Originally published in the Journal of Medical Internet Research (https://www.jmir.org), 25.02.2025.

                This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License ( https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work, first published in the Journal of Medical Internet Research (ISSN 1438-8871), is properly cited. The complete bibliographic information, a link to the original publication on https://www.jmir.org/, as well as this copyright and license information must be included.

                History
                : 25 January 2024
                : 8 November 2024
                : 21 December 2024
                : 22 January 2025
                Categories
                Review
                Review

                Medicine
                artificial intelligence,randomized controlled trial,reporting quality,primary care,meta-epidemiological study

                Comments

                Comment on this article

                scite_
                0
                0
                0
                0
                Smart Citations
                0
                0
                0
                0
                Citing PublicationsSupportingMentioningContrasting
                View Citations

                See how this article has been cited at scite.ai

                scite shows how a scientific paper has been cited by providing the context of the citation, a classification describing whether it supports, mentions, or contrasts the cited claim, and a label indicating in which section the citation was made.

                Similar content92

                Most referenced authors1,377