SynthesisJournal of medical Internet research2022
Randomized Controlled Trials of Artificial Intelligence in Clinical Practice: Systematic Review.
Synthesis in Journal of medical Internet research, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 64 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
64 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Concordance with SPIRIT-AI guidelines in reporting of randomized controlled trial protocols investigating artificial intelligence in oncology: a systematic review.The oncologist · 2025Pooled it
- Healthcare professionals' perspectives on artificial intelligence in patient care: a systematic review of hindering and facilitating factors on different levels.BMC health services research · 2025Pooled it
- Evaluations of digital public health interventions in the WHO Southeast Asia Region: a systematic literature review.International journal of technology assessment in health care · 2024Pooled it
- Concordance of randomised controlled trials for artificial intelligence interventions with the CONSORT-AI reporting guidelines.Nature communications · 2024Pooled it
- Effectiveness of an artificial intelligence-assisted training program on cleaning competency among hospital environmental service staff.BMC health services research · 2026Trial
- Artificial intelligence for individualized treatment of persistent atrial fibrillation: a randomized controlled trial.Nature medicine · 2025Trial
- Satisfactory Evaluation of Call Service Using AI After Ureteral Stent Insertion: Randomized Controlled Trial.Journal of medical Internet research · 2025Trial
- Care to Explain? AI Explanation Types Differentially Impact Chest Radiograph Diagnostic Performance and Physician Trust in AI.Radiology · 2024Trial
- AI Health Services and Health Satisfaction Across Socioeconomic Groups in South Korea: National Cross-Sectional Study Using an Instrumental Variable Approach.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Article
- Bayesian Analysis of AI-Driven Cost Savings in UK and Australian Health Care Systems: Cross-Sector Implementation Study.JMIR medical informatics · 2026Article
- Clinical predictive artificial intelligence evaluation: A narrative review of trial designs and practical considerations.PLOS digital health · 2026Review
- Artificial intelligence in cardiovascular care: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.EClinicalMedicine · 2026Article
- Conversational AI in Cognitive and Social Training for People with Dementia: A Systematic Review.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Artificial Intelligence-Assisted Screening for Patients With Diabetic Retinopathy and Age-Related Macular Degeneration in Family Medicine and Geriatric and Gerontology Care: Protocol for a Pragmatic Randomized Clinical Trial.JMIR research protocols · 2026Article
- The Analytical Framework of Clinical Trials Evaluating Clinical Outcomes of Artificial Intelligence-Based Digital Health Interventions: A Systematic Literature Review.Journal of market access & health policy · 2026Review
- Article
- Clinical artificial intelligence applications of vision-language foundation models.PLOS digital health · 2026Review
- Application of Sparse Autoencoders to Enhance Mechanistic Interpretability of Large Language Models in Medicine.JMIR AI · 2026Article
- A quantitative analysis of global AI medical studies: gaps in randomized controlled trials.NPJ digital medicine · 2026Article
- Review
4 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe number of artificial intelligence (AI) studies in medicine has exponentially increased recently. However, there is no clear quantification of the clinical benefits of implementing AI-assisted tools in patient care.
objectiveThis study aims to systematically review all published randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of AI-assisted tools to characterize their performance in clinical practice.
methodsCINAHL, Cochrane Central, Embase, MEDLINE, and PubMed were searched to identify relevant RCTs published up to July 2021 and comparing the performance of AI-assisted tools with conventional clinical management without AI assistance. We evaluated the primary end points of each study to determine their clinical relevance. This systematic review was conducted following the updated PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) 2020 guidelines.
resultsAmong the 11,839 articles retrieved, only 39 (0.33%) RCTs were included. These RCTs were conducted in an approximately equal distribution from North America, Europe, and Asia. AI-assisted tools were implemented in 13 different clinical specialties. Most RCTs were published in the field of gastroenterology, with 15 studies on AI-assisted endoscopy. Most RCTs studied biosignal-based AI-assisted tools, and a minority of RCTs studied AI-assisted tools drawn from clinical data. In 77% (30/39) of the RCTs, AI-assisted interventions outperformed usual clinical care, and clinically relevant outcomes improved with AI-assisted intervention in 70% (21/30) of the studies. Small sample size and single-center design limited the generalizability of these studies.
conclusionsThere is growing evidence supporting the implementation of AI-assisted tools in daily clinical practice; however, the number of available RCTs is limited and heterogeneous. More RCTs of AI-assisted tools integrated into clinical practice are needed to advance the role of AI in medicine.
trial registrationPROSPERO CRD42021286539; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=286539.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.