Review identifies AI's readiness to enhance evidence synthesis efficiency, implying potential for better practices.
Background: Evidence synthesis is crucial for informing evidence-based practice across various fields. However, the traditional methodology is resource-intensive, and its findings can be outdated before publication. There is a growing trend toward integrating automation and artificial intelligence (AI) approaches into evidence synthesis to enhance efficiency, but standardized adoption is still pending. Objective: The goal of this study is to identify peer-reviewed evidence documenting AI readiness for evidence synthesis. Methods: We searched MEDLINE, Embase, and Global Index Medicus in May 2025 to identify review articles that evaluated evidence synthesis tools. Relevant study reviews and tool reviews published in English between January 2020 and May 2025 were included in our review of reviews. Tool features and performance metrics were extracted according to stages of the evidence synthesis workflow, including search, screening, appraisal, extraction, and synthesis. Results: sensitivity in at least one configuration. Reported sensitivity rates of EPPI-Reviewer, Research Screener and SWIFT-Active Screener consistently reached the 95% threshold with varying degrees of automation. Conclusion: This review found peer-reviewed evidence supporting AI readiness for human-supervised automation of title/abstract screening. However, evidence documenting AI readiness for other evidence synthesis tasks remains limited. DistillerSR and EPPI-Reviewer demonstrated the broadest feature support and strong evidence for AI-powered title/abstract screening. Our study highlights the potential of AI to improve efficiency while maintaining high sensitivity in the screening stage. AI-powered screening may serve as a critical first step toward scaling rapid reviews into living evidence syntheses.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Wei et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: