Maintenance Notice

Due to necessary scheduled maintenance, the JMIR Publications website will be unavailable from Wednesday, July 01, 2020 at 8:00 PM to 10:00 PM EST. We apologize in advance for any inconvenience this may cause you.

Who will be affected?

Accepted for/Published in: Journal of Medical Internet Research

Date Submitted: Jan 25, 2024
Date Accepted: Jan 22, 2025

The final, peer-reviewed published version of this preprint can be found here:

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

Zhong J, Zhu T, Huang Y

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

J Med Internet Res 2025;27:e56774

DOI: 10.2196/56774

PMID: 39998876

PMCID: 11897677

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

  • Jinjia Zhong; 
  • Ting Zhu; 
  • Yafang Huang

ABSTRACT

Background:

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

Objective:

To systematically evaluate the reporting quality both of the published RCTs and the protocols for RCTs that investigated AI interventions in primary care.

Methods:

PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library databases were searched for RCTs and protocols on AI interventions in primary care until May 2023. Reporting quality was assessed using CONSORT-AI and SPIRIT-AI extension checklists.

Results:

A total of 6,052 unique records were identified. Nine published articles and 17 RCT protocols totally for 23 trials were included. The overall proportion of adequately reported items was 65.1% (95% CI: 56.4-72.9%) and 69.8% (95% CI: 63.9-75.1%) for RCTs and protocols respectively. The percentage of RCTs and protocols that reported a specific item, respectively, ranged from 11.1% to 100% and from 5.9% to 100%. Both RCTs and protocols reporting 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/or its code can be accessed.

Conclusions:

The reporting quality could be improved in both RCTs and protocols. This study helps to promote the transparent and complete reporting of trials with AI interventions in primary care, facilitating to AI application in real-world settings.


 Citation

Please cite as:

Zhong J, Zhu T, Huang Y

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

J Med Internet Res 2025;27:e56774

DOI: 10.2196/56774

PMID: 39998876

PMCID: 11897677

Download PDF


Request queued. Please wait while the file is being generated. It may take some time.

© The authors. All rights reserved. This is a privileged document currently under peer-review/community review (or an accepted/rejected manuscript). Authors have provided JMIR Publications with an exclusive license to publish this preprint on it's website for review and ahead-of-print citation purposes only. While the final peer-reviewed paper may be licensed under a cc-by license on publication, at this stage authors and publisher expressively prohibit redistribution of this draft paper other than for review purposes.