Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41164822›Full record

ArticleCochrane evidence synthesis and methods2025

Harnessing Large-Language Models for Efficient Data Extraction in Systematic Reviews: The Role of Prompt Engineering.

Molly Murton, Ellie Boulton, Shona Cross, Ambar Khan, Swati Kumar, Giuseppina Magri, Charlotte Marris, David Slater, Emma Worthington, Elizabeth Lunn

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Cochrane evidence synthesis and methods, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Evaluating AI Performance in Systematic Literature Reviews for HEOR: A Case Study.Journal of health economics and outcomes research · 2026
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors.

Molly MurtonCostello Medical Consulting Limited Cambridge UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8853-9400
Ellie BoultonCostello Medical Consulting Limited Manchester UK.
Shona CrossCostello Medical Consulting Limited Cambridge UK.
Ambar KhanCostello Medical Consulting Limited London UK.
Swati KumarCostello Medical Consulting Limited Cambridge UK.
Giuseppina MagriCostello Medical Consulting Limited Cambridge UK.
Charlotte MarrisCostello Medical Consulting Limited Manchester UK.
David SlaterCostello Medical Consulting Limited Cambridge UK.
Emma WorthingtonCostello Medical Consulting Limited Cambridge UK.
Elizabeth LunnCostello Medical Consulting Limited Manchester UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: Systematic literature reviews (SLRs) of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) underpin evidence-based medicine but can be limited by the intensive resource demands of data extraction. Recent advances in accessible large-language models (LLMs) hold promise for automating this step, however testing is limited across different outcomes and disease areas. Methods: This study developed prompt engineering strategies for GPT-4o to extract data from RCTs across three disease areas: non-small cell lung cancer, endometrial cancer and hypertrophic cardiomyopathy. Prompts were iteratively refined during the development phase, then tested on unseen data. Performance was evaluated via comparison to human extraction of the same data, using F1 scores, precision, recall and percentage accuracy. Results: The LLM was highly effective for extracting study and baseline characteristics, often equaling human performance, with test F1 scores exceeding 0.85. Complex efficacy and adverse event data proved more challenging, with test F1 scores ranging from 0.22 to 0.50. Transferability of prompts across disease areas was promising but varied, highlighting the need for disease-specific refinement. Conclusion: Our findings demonstrate the potential of LLMs, guided by rigorous prompt engineering, to augment the SLR process. However, human oversight remains essential, particularly for complex and nuanced data. As these technologies evolve, continued validation of AI tools will be necessary to ensure accuracy and reliability, and safeguarding of the quality of evidence synthesis.

Indexed as

artificial intelligencedata extractionlarge‐language modelprompt engineeringsystematic literature review

Identifiers

PMID41164822
PMCPMC12559671

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.