← Browse all papers
AI evidence extraction
Prompt engineering of large language models for paper screening in medical meta-analyses and systematic reviews: A prospective comparative study – CORRIGENDUM
T Adam, Salma AS Abosabie, Max Dittmer, Elise Wolf, Sara A. Abosabie, Clara Behnke et al. · Research Synthesis Methods · 2026
AI-generated evidence extraction, verified across multiple analytical personas. Not a substitute for the peer-reviewed original.
9/10
Relevance
0/4
Quality (LMQS)
E
Evidence
0
Citations
0.00
FWCI
This is an AI analysis. Read the peer-reviewed original at the publisher: https://doi.org/10.1017/rsm.2026.10104
Methodology & findings
Study design
Prospective comparative study examining prompt engineering of large language models for paper screening in medical meta-analyses and systematic reviews
Sample
null–not–available, 1 group
Primary method
null_not_available
Reports effect sizes and confidence intervals.
Research paradigm
empiricist
Author conclusions
null_not_available
Risk of bias
null_not_available
Limitations
- null_not_available
Open questions raised
- null_not_available
Data: not_statedCode: not_statedExtracted from: pdfAgreement 87%
Explore related topics
Related papers
- PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR): Checklist and ExplanationAndrea C. Tricco · 2018 · 40,391 citations
- Rayyan—a web and mobile app for systematic reviewsMourad Ouzzani · 2016 · 24,664 citations
- Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions2019 · 14,420 citations
- Estimating the reproducibility of psychological scienceAlexander A. Aarts · 2015 · 8,669 citations
- Guidance for conducting systematic scoping reviewsMicah D.J. Peters · 2015 · 7,472 citations
- Updated methodological guidance for the conduct of scoping reviewsMicah D.J. Peters · 2020 · 6,688 citations