Can artificial intelligence separate the wheat from the chaff in systematic reviews of health economic articles?

M. J. Oude Wolcherink,X. G. L. V. Pouwels,S. H. B. van Dijk,C. J. M. Doggen,H. Koffijberg
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/14737167.2023.2234639
2023-08-15
Abstract:Artificial intelligence-powered tools, such as ASReview, could reduce the burden of title and abstract screening. This study aimed to assess the accuracy and efficiency of using ASReview in a health economic context. A sample from a previous systematic literature review containing 4,994 articles was used. Previous manual screening resulted in 134 articles included for full-text screening (FT) and 50 for data extraction (DE). Here, accuracy and efficiency was evaluated by comparing the number of identified relevant articles with ASReview versus manual screening. Pre-defined stopping rules using sampling criteria and heuristic criteria were tested. Robustness of the AI-tool's performance was determined using 1,000 simulations. Considering included stopping rules, median accuracy for FT articles remained below 85%, but reached 100% for DE articles. To identify all relevant articles, a median of 89.9% of FT articles needed to be screened, compared to 7.7% for DE articles. Potential time savings between 49 and 59 hours could be achieved, depending on the stopping rule. In our case study, all DE articles were identified after screening 7.7% of the sample, allowing for substantial time savings. ASReview likely has the potential to substantially reduce screening time in systematic reviews of health economic articles.
pharmacology & pharmacy,health care sciences & services,health policy & services
What problem does this paper attempt to address?