The advancement of ChatGPT-powered artificial intelligence (AI) opens up new possibilities for conducting systematic reviews. This study aims to examine how ChatGPT-powered AI can assist in the steps involved in systematic reviews, and its potential and challenges. The authors utilize a comparative case study approach to examine the search-term-generation and article-retrieval capabilities among a human librarian, ChatGPT-4, and a ChatGPT-4 Turbo customized AI-Librarian Bot. The findings suggest that AI could expand the scope of search terms and queries, automating the more repetitive and formulaic aspects of the systematic-review process, while human expertise remains crucial in refining search terms and ensuring methodological rigor. Meanwhile, challenges remain for AI tools’ capacity to access subscription-based or proprietary databases and generate sophisticated search strategies. This study advocates for a synergistic model where AI augments the systematic-review process, complementing the depth and nuance provided by human expertise in achieving accurate and comprehensive research outcomes.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Chen et al. (2024) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: