Using artificial intelligence methods for systematic review in health sciences : A systematic review

The authors thank Mr. Josh Higashi for aiding in the post-hoc full-text screening.Peer reviewedPostprin

Disparities in COVID-19 related outcomes in the United States by race and ethnicity pre-vaccination era: an umbrella review of meta-analyses

BackgroundMeta-analyses have investigated associations between race and ethnicity and COVID-19 outcomes. However, there is uncertainty about these associations’ existence, magnitude, and level of evidence. We, therefore, aimed to synthesize, quantify, and grade the strength of evidence of race and ethnicity and COVID-19 outcomes in the US.MethodsIn this umbrella review, we searched four databases (Pubmed, Embase, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and Epistemonikos) from database inception to April 2022. The methodological quality of each meta-analysis was assessed using the Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews, version 2 (AMSTAR-2). The strength of evidence of the associations between race and ethnicity with outcomes was ranked according to established criteria as convincing, highly suggestive, suggestive, weak, or non-significant. The study protocol was registered with PROSPERO, CRD42022336805.ResultsOf 880 records screened, we selected seven meta-analyses for evidence synthesis, with 42 associations examined. Overall, 10 of 42 associations were statistically significant (p ≤ 0.05). Two associations were highly suggestive, two were suggestive, and two were weak, whereas the remaining 32 associations were non-significant. The risk of COVID-19 infection was higher in Black individuals compared to White individuals (risk ratio, 2.08, 95% Confidence Interval (CI), 1.60–2.71), which was supported by highly suggestive evidence; with the conservative estimates from the sensitivity analyses, this association remained suggestive. Among those infected with COVID-19, Hispanic individuals had a higher risk of COVID-19 hospitalization than non-Hispanic White individuals (odds ratio, 2.08, 95% CI, 1.60–2.70) with highly suggestive evidence which remained after sensitivity analyses.ConclusionIndividuals of Black and Hispanic groups had a higher risk of COVID-19 infection and hospitalization compared to their White counterparts. These associations of race and ethnicity and COVID-19 outcomes existed more obviously in the pre-hospitalization stage. More consideration should be given in this stage for addressing health inequity

School-Based Educational Interventions to address learning loss for disadvantaged students in primary and secondary education

The Southeast Asia Evidence for Policy and Partnership (SEAEPP) is a network of evidence scholars working together to promote evidence synthesis for policy-making in Southeast Asia. We are pleased to publish the evidence review on school-based educational interventions to address learning loss for disadvantaged students in primary and secondary education. We describe the nature of 53 research studies to understand their key characteristics and to identify research gaps. This review is co-produced by the Office of Education Council, Ministry of Education, Thailand. We also publish the brief in Thai. Please see the interactive map to access the studies included in the review.https://eppi.ioe.ac.uk/eppi-vis/login/open?webdbid=31

Using artificial intelligence methods for systematic review in health sciences: a systematic review. [Appendices]

Systematic reviews are fundamental to evidence-based decision making, as they use a comprehensive search and synthesis of the available literature. Such an operation usually requires a team of reviewers to evaluate thousands of articles. With the exponential increase in published articles, more time is needed to review existing literature thoroughly. It has been reported that the average time to complete a systematic review is over 15 months. The current methods of biomedical indexing may have contributed to inefficiency in screening, as the proportion of truly relevant articles may be as low as 1% of the total search yield with a typical search strategy. The exponential increase in published articles makes a thorough and expedient review of literature increasingly challenging. This review delineated automated tools and platforms that employ artificial intelligence (AI) approaches and evaluated the reported benefits and challenges in using such methods. A search was conducted in 4 databases (Medline, Embase, CDSR, and Epistemonikos) up to April 2021 for systematic reviews and other related reviews implementing AI methods. To be included, the review must use any form of AI method, including machine learning, deep learning, neural network, or any other applications used to enable the full or semi-autonomous performance of one or more stages in the development of evidence synthesis

Using artificial intelligence methods for systematic review in health sciences: a systematic review.

The exponential increase in published articles makes a thorough and expedient review of literature increasingly challenging. This review delineated automated tools and platforms that employ artificial intelligence (AI) approaches and evaluated the reported benefits and challenges in using such methods. A search was conducted in 4 databases (Medline, Embase, CDSR, and Epistemonikos) up to April 2021 for systematic reviews and other related reviews implementing AI methods. To be included, the review must use any form of AI method, including machine learning, deep learning, neural network, or any other applications used to enable the full or semi-autonomous performance of one or more stages in the development of evidence synthesis. Twelve reviews were included, using nine different tools to implement 15 different AI methods. Eleven methods were used in the screening stages of the review (73%). The rest were divided: two in data extraction (13%) and two in risk of bias assessment (13%). The ambiguous benefits of the data extractions, combined with the reported advantages from 10 reviews, indicating that AI platforms have taken hold with varying success in evidence synthesis. However, the results are qualified by the reliance on the self-reporting of the review authors. Extensive human validation still appears required at this stage in implementing AI methods, though further evaluation is required to define the overall contribution of such platforms in enhancing efficiency and quality in evidence synthesis