medigraphic.com
ISSN 2992-7749 (Electronic)
ISSN 2992-7897 (Print)
Órgano Oficial de difusión científica de la Asociación Mexicana de Cirujanos de Columna A. C. y de la Sociedad Iberolatinoamericana de Columna. SILACO.

Indizada en:

Scielo

2026, Number 4

<< Back

Cir Columna 2026; 4 (4)

Systematic review assisted by artificial intelligence: usefulness, challenges and recommendations

Salcido RMV

Language: Spanish
References: 17
Page: 349-356
PDF size: 739.43 Kb.


ABSTRACT

Introduction: the systematic review (SR) represents the highest level of scientific evidence. Its elaboration, however, is a complex process with high demands on time and resources. Artificial intelligence (AI) emerges as a tool with the potential to transform each stage of this process. Objective: to critically evaluate the role of artificial intelligence as an assistive tool in the elaboration of systematic reviews, identifying its methodological and ethical advantages and limitations, and proposing criteria for its responsible implementation based on the PRISMA-P 2015 checklist. Material and methods: a narrative review of the literature was conducted in PubMed, Cochrane, Scopus and Web of Science on the use of AI in systematic reviews and meta-analyses, complemented by analysis of documents from experts in research methodology, including Jiménez Ávila and collaborators. Results: AI offers significant advantages in processing large volumes of information, reducing operational bias, and automating search, screening and data extraction. Relevant challenges were identified: algorithmic bias, hallucinations, lack of transparency, limited reproducibility, and the absence of consolidated methodological standards. Tools such as ASReview, Covidence, Elicit, GRADEpro and Rayyan demonstrated proven utility at different stages of the process. Conclusions: AI improves efficiency and can contribute to the quality of systematic reviews when its use is supervised, declared and methodologically justified. It does not replace the scientific judgment of the researcher. Its incorporation should be progressive, critical and subject to explicit ethical and transparency standards.


REFERENCES

  1. Higgins JPT, Thomas J, Chandler J, et al. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions, Version 6.3. Cochrane; 2022. Disponible en: https://www.cochrane.org/authors/handbooks-and-manuals/handbook/current

  2. Cumpston M, Li T, Page MJ, Chandler J, Welch VA, Higgins JP, et al. Updated guidance for trusted systematic reviews: a new edition of the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2019; 10: ED000142. doi: 10.1002/14651858.ED000142.

  3. Bornmann L, Mutz R. Growth rates of modern science: a bibliometric analysis based on the number of publications and cited references. J Assoc Inf Sci Technol. 2015; 66: 2215-2222. doi: 10.1002/asi.23329.

  4. Elsevier. Scopus Content Coverage Guide. Amsterdam: Elsevier B.V.; 2023. Disponible en: www.elsevier.com/solutions/scopus/how-scopus-works/content

  5. Liu PR, Lu L, Zhang JY, Huo TT, Liu SX, Ye ZW. Application of artificial intelligence in medicine: an overview. Curr Med Sci. 2021; 41(6): 1105-1115. doi: 10.1007/s11596-021-2474-3.

  6. Jiménez ÁJM. La revolución de la inteligencia artificial generativa en el área de la salud y la cirugía de columna. Cir Columna. 2025; 3: 76-77. doi: 10.35366/119615.

  7. Van Dijk SHB, Brusse-Keizer MGJ, Bucsán CC, Van Der Palen J, Doggen CJM, Lenferink A. Artificial intelligence in systematic reviews: promising when appropriately used. BMJ Open. 2023; 13: e072254. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2023-072254.

  8. Von Groote T, Ghoreishi N, Bjorklund M, Porschen C, Puljak L. Exponential growth of systematic reviews assessing artificial intelligence studies in medicine: challenges and opportunities. Syst Rev. 2022; 11: 132. doi: 10.1186/s13643-022-01984-7.

  9. Grzybowski A, Jin K, Wu H. Challenges of artificial intelligence in medicine and dermatology. Clin Dermatol. 2024; 42: 210-215. doi: 10.1016/j.clindermatol.2023.12.013.

  10. Alkaissi H, McFarlane SI. Artificial hallucinations in ChatGPT: implications in scientific writing. Cureus. 2023; 15: e35179. doi: 10.7759/cureus.35179.

  11. Bernard N, Sagawa Y Jr, Bier N, Lihoreau T, Pazart L, Tannou T. Using artificial intelligence for systematic review: the example of Elicit. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2025; 25: 75. doi: 10.1186/s12874-025-02528-y.

  12. Crossnohere NL, Elsaid M, Paskett J, Bose-Brill S, Bridges JFP. Guidelines for artificial intelligence in medicine: literature review and content analysis of frameworks. J Med Internet Res. 2022; 24: e36823. doi: 10.2196/36823.

  13. Henzler D, Schmidt S, Kocar A, et al. Healthcare professionals' perspectives on artificial intelligence in patient care: a systematic review. BMC Health Serv Res. 2025; 25: 416. doi: 10.1186/s12913-025-12664-2

  14. Shamseer L, Moher D, Clarke M, Ghersi D, Liberati A, Petticrew M, et al. Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015: elaboration and explanation. BMJ. 2015; 349: g7647. doi: 10.1136/bmj.g7647.

  15. Thomas J, McDonald S, Noel-Storr A, Shemilt I, Elliott J, Mavergames C, et al. Machine learning reduced workload with minimal risk of missing studies: development and evaluation of a randomized controlled trial classifier for Cochrane Reviews. J Clin Epidemiol. 2021; 133: 140-151. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2020.11.003. PMID: 33171275.

  16. Marshall IJ, Kuiper J, Banner E, Wallace BC. Automating biomedical evidence synthesis: RobotReviewer. J Proc Conf Assoc Comput Linguist Meet. 2017; 2017: 7-12. doi: 10.18653/v1/P17-4002.

  17. Jiménez ÁJM, Negrete IJ, Hyun JS. La inteligencia artificial en la investigación en el ámbito de la salud: desafíos y oportunidades. Cir Columna. 2025; 3: 139-145. doi: 10.35366/119625.




2020     |     www.medigraphic.com