ArticleNPJ digital medicine2026
Large language models in systematic review and meta-analysis of surgical treatments for vaginal vault prolapse.
Article in NPJ digital medicine, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Systematic reviews provide the highest level of evidence but remain resource-intensive. We evaluated the performance of a large language model (LLM; ChatGPT, OpenAI) in a PRISMA-guided review of randomized controlled trials on vaginal vault prolapse surgery. Prompts were carefully designed to minimize errors, and outputs were verified. Each task was completed within minutes. For title/abstract screening, recall was 69.8% and precision 85.7% (κ = 0.77); full-text agreement 94.1-100% (κ = 0.82-1); data extraction accuracy 87.5-99.7%. From 18 RCTs (1668 women), sacrocolpopexy (SC) showed higher anatomic success than sacrospinous fixation (SSF) (OR 1.42, 95% CI 0.71-2.84). Transvaginal mesh improved 3-year objective success compared with SSF (OR 1.84, 95% CI 1.13-2.99) but had higher reoperation rates (5-16% vs 2-4%) than SC. We did not find conclusive evidence that any single technique is superior; most comparisons were underpowered, with wide confidence intervals and substantial heterogeneity. All LLM-derived statistical results were identical to those from conventional R analyses, confirming robustness. Validated LLM workflows can enable more efficient and scalable evidence synthesis.
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.