维普中文期刊产品整合服务

Investigation and evaluation of randomized controlled trials for interventions involving artificial intelligence

查看全文 作　　者：Jianjian [1]Wang;Shouyuan [1]Wu;Qiangqiang [1]Guo;Hui [1]Lan;Estill [2,3]Janne;Ling [1]Wang;Juanjuan [1]Zhang;Qi [4,5]Wang;Yang [6]Song;Nan [7]Yang;Xufei [1]Luo;Qi [8]Zhou;Qianling [8]Shi;Xuan [7]Yu;Yanfang [7]Ma;Joseph [9]LMathew;Hyeong Sik [10,11,12,13]Ahn;Myeong Soo [14,15,16,17]Lee;Yaolong [1,7,18,19]Chen 高影响力作者 机构地区：[1]School of Public Health,Lanzhou University,Lanzhou,Gansu 730000,China;[2]Institute of Global Health,University of Geneva,Geneva,Switzerland;[3]Institute of Mathematical Statistics and Actuarial Science,University of Bern,Bern,Switzerland;[4]Department of Health Research Methods,Evidence and Impact,Faculty of Health Sciences,McMaster University,Hamilton,Canada;[5]McMaster Health Forum,McMaster University,Hamilton,Canada;[6]Iberoamerican Cochrane Centre-Biomedical Research Institute Sant Pau(IIB Sant Pau),Barcelona,Spain;[7]Evidence-based Medicine Center,School of Basic Medical Sciences,Lanzhou University,Lanzhou,Gansu 730000,China;[8]The First School of Clinical Medicine,Lanzhou University,Lanzhou,Gansu 730000,China;[9]Advanced Pediatrics Centre,PGIMER Chandigarh,Chandigarh,India;[10]Department of Preventive Medicine,Korea University,Seoul,Korea;[11]Korea Cochrane Centre,Seoul,Korea;[12]Evidence Based Medicine,Seoul,Korea;[13]Korea University School of Medicine,Seoul,Korea;[14]Korea Institute of Oriental Medicine,Daejeon,Korea;[15]University of Science and Technology,Daejeon,Korea;[16]London Southbank University,London,UK;[17]Tianjin University of Traditional Chinese Medicine,Tianjin 301617,China;[18]Lanzhou University Institute of Health Data Science,Lanzhou,Gansu 730000,China;[19]Key Laboratory of Evidence Based Medicine&Knowledge Translation of Gansu Province,Lanzhou,Gansu 730000,China高影响力机构 出　　处：《Intelligent Medicine》索引2021年第1卷第2期,共9页高影响力期刊 摘　　要：Objective Complete and transparent reporting is of critical importance for randomized controlled trials(RCTs).The present study aimed to determine the reporting quality and methodological quality of RCTs for interventions involving artificial intelligence(AI)and their protocols.Methods We searched MEDLINE(via PubMed),Embase,Web of Science,CBMdisc,Wanfang Data,and CNKI from January 1,2016,to November 11,2020,to collect RCTs involving AI.We also extracted the protocol of each included RCT if it could be obtained.CONSORT-AI(Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials-Artificial Intelligence)statement and Cochrane Collaboration’s tool for assessing risk of bias(ROB)were used to evaluate the reporting quality and methodological quality,respectively,and SPIRIT-AI(The Standard Protocol Items:Recommendations for Interventional Trials-Artificial Intelligence)statement was used to evaluate the reporting quality of the protocols.The associations of the reporting rate of CONSORT-AI with the publication year,journal’s impact factor(IF),number of authors,sample size,and first author’s country were analyzed univariately using Pearson’s chi-squared test,or Fisher’s exact test if the expected values in any of the cells were below 5.The compliance of the retrieved protocols to SPIRIT-AI was presented descriptively.Results Overall,29 RCTs and three protocols were considered eligible.The CONSORT-AI items“title and abstract”and“interpretation of results”were reported by all RCTs,with the items with the lowest reporting rates being“funding”(0),“implementation”(3.5%),and“harms”(3.5%).The risk of bias was high in 13(44.8%)RCTs and not clear in 15(51.7%)RCTs.Only one RCT(3.5%)had a low risk of bias.The compliance was not significantly different in terms of the publication year,journal’s IF,number of authors,sample size,or first author’s country.Ten of the 35 SPIRIT-AI items(funding,participant timeline,allocation concealment mechanism,implementation,data management,auditing,declaration of interests,access to data,informed consent materials and biological specimens)were not reported by any of the three protocols.Conclusions The reporting and methodological quality of RCTs involving AI need to be improved.Because of the limited availability of protocols,their quality could not be fully judged.Following the CONSORT-AI and SPIRIT-AI statements and with appropriate guidance on the risk of bias when designing and reporting AI-related RCTs can promote standardization and transparency. 关 键 词：Artificial intelligence Randomized controlled trials Reporting quality Methodological quality
相关文献

参考文献(77)

耦合文献(509)

网站首页 | 关于我们 | 联系我们 | 产品服务 | 客服中心 | 广告服务 | 版权声明 | 网站联盟 | 友情链接 | 售卡网点

版权所有© 渝B2-20050021-1　渝公网安备 50019002500403号　违法和不良信息举报中心

互联网出版许可证 新出网证(渝)字10号 全国400电话 - 免长途话费