Cited by 555Meta-analysis and systematic reviewsArtificial Intelligence in Healthcare and EducationStatistical Methods in Clinical Trials

Reporting guidelines for clinical trial reports for interventions involving artificial intelligence: the CONSORT-AI extension

Open access
Liu, Xiaoxuan, Cruz Rivera, Samantha, Moher, David, Calvert, Melanie J, Denniston, Alastair K, Ashrafian, Hutan, Beam, Andrew L, Chan, An-Wen +31 more·2020·The Lancet Digital Health

Abstract

The CONSORT 2010 statement provides minimum guidelines for reporting randomised trials. Its widespread use has been instrumental in ensuring transparency in the evaluation of new interventions. More recently, there has been a growing recognition that interventions involving artificial intelligence (AI) need to undergo rigorous, prospective evaluation to demonstrate impact on health outcomes. The CONSORT-AI (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials-Artificial Intelligence) extension is a new reporting guideline for clinical trials evaluating interventions with an AI component. It was developed in parallel with its companion statement for clinical trial protocols: SPIRIT-AI (Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials-Artificial Intelligence). Both guidelines were developed through a staged consensus process involving literature review and expert consultation to generate 29 candidate items, which were assessed by an international multi-stakeholder group in a two-stage Delphi survey (103 stakeholders), agreed upon in a two-day consensus meeting (31 stakeholders), and refined through a checklist pilot (34 participants). The CONSORT-AI extension includes 14 new items that were considered sufficiently important for AI interventions that they should be routinely reported in addition to the core CONSORT 2010 items. CONSORT-AI recommends that investigators provide clear descriptions of the AI intervention, including instructions and skills required for use, the setting in which the AI intervention is integrated, the handling of inputs and outputs of the AI intervention, the human-AI interaction and provision of an analysis of error cases. CONSORT-AI will help promote transparency and completeness in reporting clinical trials for AI interventions. It will assist editors and peer reviewers, as well as the general readership, to understand, interpret, and critically appraise the quality of clinical trial design and risk of bias in the reported outcomes.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/s2589-7500(20)30218-1

Cites

63 of 63 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • There are concerns about the quality and transparency of published clinical trials in medical AI, which often lack the methodological rigor and detailed reporting necessary to inspire clinical confidence and enable replication.

    “Second, there are also concerns about the quality and transparency of published clinical trials, which often lack the methodological rigor and detailed reporting necessary to inspire clinical confidence and enable replication9–11.”
  • The trial findings are reported according to CONSORT guidelines and extensions for AI, cluster-randomized trials, and pragmatic trials.

    “We report our trial findings according to the CONSORT guidelines31 and extensions for AI32, cluster-randomized trials33 and pragmatic trials34 (Supplementary Table 1).”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Liu, X., Cruz Rivera, S., Moher, D., Calvert, M. J., Denniston, A. K., Ashrafian, H., Beam, A. L., Chan, A.-W., Collins, G. S., Deeks, A. D. J., ElZarrad, M. K., Espinoza, C., Esteva, A., Faes, L., Ferrante di Ruffano, L., Fletcher, J., Golub, R., Harvey, H., Haug, C., Holmes, C., Jonas, A., Keane, P. A., Kelly, C. J., Lee, A. Y., Lee, C. S., Manna, E., Matcham, J., McCradden, M., Monteiro, J., Mulrow, C., Oakden-Rayner, L., Paltoo, D., Panico, M. B., Price, G., Rowley, S., Savage, R., Sarkar, R., Vollmer, S. J., & Yau, C.
Affiliations
  • University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust (GB)
  • University of Ottawa (CA)
Corresponding author
Denniston, Alastair K
Venue
The Lancet Digital Health
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2020-10
Volume
2
Issue
10
Pages
e537-e548
ISSN
2589-7500 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3136907493
Cited by
555
References
63
Citations by year
2026: 257 · 2025: 103 · 2024: 81 · 2023: 50 · 2022: 38 · 2021: 23 · 2020: 3
FWCI
5.87
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • The Lancet Digital Health (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • University of Birmingham Research Portal (University of Birmingham) (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • University of Birmingham Research Portal (University of Birmingham) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
Funders
  • Research England
  • Wellcome Trust
  • Alan Turing Institute
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Health Informatics › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods in Clinical Trials
Keywords
CONSORT-AI, reporting guidelines, artificial intelligence interventions, clinical trial reporting, randomised trials, human-AI interaction, transparency, risk of bias, consensus development
MeSH terms
Artificial Intelligence, Clinical Trials as Topic, Delphi Technique, Humans, Publishing, Research Design, Guidelines as Topic, Disclosure, Consensus, Checklist, Research Report

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review