Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorMartindale, Alexander P L
dc.contributor.authorNg, Benjamin
dc.contributor.authorNgai, Victoria
dc.contributor.authorKale, Aditya U
dc.contributor.authorFerrante di Ruffano, Lavinia
dc.contributor.authorGolub, Robert M
dc.contributor.authorCollins, Gary S
dc.contributor.authorMoher, David
dc.contributor.authorMcCradden, Melissa D
dc.contributor.authorOakden-Rayner, Lauren
dc.contributor.authorRivera, Samantha Cruz
dc.contributor.authorCalvert, Melanie
dc.contributor.authorKelly, Christopher J
dc.contributor.authorLee, Cecilia S
dc.contributor.authorYau, Christopher
dc.contributor.authorChan, An-Wen
dc.contributor.authorKeane, Pearse A
dc.contributor.authorBeam, Andrew L
dc.contributor.authorDenniston, Alastair K
dc.contributor.authorLiu, Xiaoxuan
dc.date.accessioned2024-03-27T16:16:34Z
dc.date.available2024-03-27T16:16:34Z
dc.date.issued2024-02-22
dc.identifier.citationMartindale APL, Ng B, Ngai V, Kale AU, Ferrante di Ruffano L, Golub RM, Collins GS, Moher D, McCradden MD, Oakden-Rayner L, Rivera SC, Calvert M, Kelly CJ, Lee CS, Yau C, Chan AW, Keane PA, Beam AL, Denniston AK, Liu X. Concordance of randomised controlled trials for artificial intelligence interventions with the CONSORT-AI reporting guidelines. Nat Commun. 2024 Feb 22;15(1):1619. doi: 10.1038/s41467-024-45355-3.en_US
dc.identifier.eissn2041-1723
dc.identifier.doi10.1038/s41467-024-45355-3
dc.identifier.pmid38388497
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/20.500.14200/4023
dc.description.abstractThe Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials extension for Artificial Intelligence interventions (CONSORT-AI) was published in September 2020. Since its publication, several randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of AI interventions have been published but their completeness and transparency of reporting is unknown. This systematic review assesses the completeness of reporting of AI RCTs following publication of CONSORT-AI and provides a comprehensive summary of RCTs published in recent years. 65 RCTs were identified, mostly conducted in China (37%) and USA (18%). Median concordance with CONSORT-AI reporting was 90% (IQR 77-94%), although only 10 RCTs explicitly reported its use. Several items were consistently under-reported, including algorithm version, accessibility of the AI intervention or code, and references to a study protocol. Only 3 of 52 included journals explicitly endorsed or mandated CONSORT-AI. Despite a generally high concordance amongst recent AI RCTs, some AI-specific considerations remain systematically poorly reported. Further encouragement of CONSORT-AI adoption by journals and funders may enable more complete adoption of the full CONSORT-AI guidelines.en_US
dc.language.isoenen_US
dc.publisherNature Researchen_US
dc.relation.urlhttp://www.nature.com/ncomms/index.htmlen_US
dc.rights© 2024. The Author(s).
dc.subjectHealth services. Managementen_US
dc.titleConcordance of randomised controlled trials for artificial intelligence interventions with the CONSORT-AI reporting guidelinesen_US
dc.typeArticle
dc.source.journaltitleNature Communications
dc.source.volume15
dc.source.issue1
dc.source.beginpage1619
dc.source.endpage
dc.source.countryUnited Kingdom
dc.source.countryEngland
rioxxterms.versionNAen_US
dc.contributor.trustauthorDenniston, Alastair K
dc.contributor.trustauthorLiu, Xiaoxuan
dc.contributor.trustauthorKale, Aditya U
dc.contributor.departmentOphthalmologyen_US
dc.contributor.roleAdmin and Clericalen_US
dc.contributor.roleMedical and Dentalen_US
oa.grant.openaccessnaen_US


This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record