Abstract:Background: Artificial intelligence (AI) medical devices have the potential to transform existing clinical workflows and ultimately improve patient outcomes. AI medical devices have shown potential for a range of clinical tasks such as diagnostics, prognostics, and therapeutic decision-making such as drug dosing. There is, however, an urgent need to ensure that these technologies remain safe for all populations. Recent literature demonstrates the need for rigorous performance error analysis to identify issues such as algorithmic encoding of spurious correlations (eg, protected characteristics) or specific failure modes that may lead to patient harm. Guidelines for reporting on studies that evaluate AI medical devices require the mention of performance error analysis; however, there is still a lack of understanding around how performance errors should be analyzed in clinical studies, and what harms authors should aim to detect and report. Objective: This systematic review will assess the frequency and severity of AI errors and adverse events (AEs) in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) investigating AI medical devices as interventions in clinical settings. The review will also explore how performance errors are analyzed including whether the analysis includes the investigation of subgroup-level outcomes. Methods: This systematic review will identify and select RCTs assessing AI medical devices. Search strategies will be deployed in MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase (Ovid), Cochrane CENTRAL, and clinical trial registries to identify relevant papers. RCTs identified in bibliographic databases will be cross-referenced with clinical trial registries. The primary outcomes of interest are the frequency and severity of AI errors, patient harms, and reported AEs. Quality assessment of RCTs will be based on version 2 of the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool (RoB2). Data analysis will include a comparison of error rates and patient harms between study arms, and a meta-analysis of the rates of patient harm in control versus intervention arms will be conducted if appropriate. Results: The project was registered on PROSPERO in February 2023. Preliminary searches have been completed and the search strategy has been designed in consultation with an information specialist and methodologist. Title and abstract screening started in September 2023. Full-text screening is ongoing and data collection and analysis began in April 2024. Conclusions: Evaluations of AI medical devices have shown promising results; however, reporting of studies has been variable. Detection, analysis, and reporting of performance errors and patient harms is vital to robustly assess the safety of AI medical devices in RCTs. Scoping searches have illustrated that the reporting of harms is variable, often with no mention of AEs. The findings of this systematic review will identify the frequency and severity of AI performance errors and patient harms and generate insights into how errors should be analyzed to account for both overall and subgroup performance. Trial registration: PROSPERO CRD42023387747; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=387747. International registered report identifier (irrid): PRR1-10.2196/51614.

Reporting guidelines for clinical trial reports for interventions involving artificial intelligence: the CONSORT-AI extension

[Reporting guidelines for clinical trial reports for interventions involving artificial intelligence: the CONSORT-AI extensionDiretrizes para relatórios de ensaios clínicos com intervenções que utilizam inteligência artificial: a extensão CONSORT-AI]

Reporting guidelines for clinical trials of artificial intelligence interventions: the SPIRIT-AI and CONSORT-AI guidelines

Concordance of randomised controlled trials for artificial intelligence interventions with the CONSORT-AI reporting guidelines

Investigation and Evaluation of Randomized Controlled Trials for Interventions Involving Artificial Intelligence

PRISMA AI reporting guidelines for systematic reviews and meta-analyses on AI in healthcare

Developing a reporting guideline for artificial intelligence-centred diagnostic test accuracy studies: the STARD-AI protocol

Reporting guidelines in medical artificial intelligence: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Guidelines, Consensus Statements, and Standards for the Use of Artificial Intelligence in Medicine: Systematic Review

Reporting of surrogate endpoints in randomised controlled trial reports (CONSORT-Surrogate): extension checklist with explanation and elaboration

Protocol of the CONSORT and SPIRIT Extension for multicenter clinical trials

Adherence of randomised controlled trials using artificial intelligence in ophthalmology to CONSORT-AI guidelines: a systematic review and critical appraisal

Evolution of Research Reporting Standards: Adapting to the Influence of Artificial Intelligence, Statistics Software, and Writing Tools

CONSORT-SPI 2018 Explanation and Elaboration: guidance for reporting social and psychological intervention trials

Adherence of studies involving artificial intelligence in the analysis of ophthalmology electronic medical records to AI-specific items from the CONSORT-AI guideline: a systematic review

CONSORT-EHEALTH: improving and standardizing evaluation reports of Web-based and mobile health interventions

Detecting Algorithmic Errors and Patient Harms for AI-Enabled Medical Devices in Randomized Controlled Trials: Protocol for a Systematic Review

Artificial intelligence innovation in healthcare: Relevance of reporting guidelines for clinical translation from bench to bedside

Reporting guideline for the early-stage clinical evaluation of decision support systems driven by artificial intelligence: DECIDE-AI

Reporting of surrogate endpoints in randomised controlled trial protocols (SPIRIT-Surrogate): extension checklist with explanation and elaboration

An update to SPIRIT and CONSORT reporting guidelines to enhance transparency in randomized trials