Application ChatGPT in conducting systematic reviews and meta-analyses
Open accessThe 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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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?
Such a limitation will not be easily detected by anecdotal tests and may mislead general users who may assume that GPT is performing well when it is not.
“Such a limitation will not be easily detected by anecdotal tests (Mahuli et al., 2023; Qureshi et al., 2023) and may mislead general users who may assume that GPT is performing well when it is not.”
From Can large language models replace humans in systematic reviews? Evaluating <scp>GPT</scp> ‐4's efficacy in screening and extracting data from peer‐reviewed and grey literature in multiple languages (2024) · cites this paper as Mahuli et al., 2023
In “Application ChatGPT in conducting systematic reviews and meta-analyses” (page not specified in our copy), the authors warn that ChatGPT can generate incorrect or biased responses and that users should independently verify its information. This supports the concern about assuming it performs well, but the paper does not say that anecdotal tests are unlikely to reveal the limitation or discuss misleading general users specifically. (LLM, conf=0.84)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredSome prior studies have methodological shortcomings, such as Mahuli et al. (2023) not providing an objective evaluation of GPT's performance, or Alshami et al. (2023) not testing GPT's autonomous performance.
“Some have methodological shortcomings, such as Mahuli et al., (2023), who did not provide an objective evaluation of GPT's performance, or Alshami et al., (2023), who did not test GPT's autonomous performance, instead relying on a 'human-in-the-loop' approach.”
From Can large language models replace humans in systematic reviews? Evaluating <scp>GPT</scp> ‐4's efficacy in screening and extracting data from peer‐reviewed and grey literature in multiple languages (2024) · cites this paper as Mahuli et al., 2023
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
Borah, R., Brown, A. W., Capers, P. L., & Kaiser, K. A. (2017) · BMJ Open · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2016-012545 · Cited by 737 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 2
- Yaffe J, Montgomery P, Hopewell S, Shepard L D. Empty reviews: a description and consideration of Cochrane systematic reviews with no included studies. PLoS One 2012; doi: doi: 10.1371/journal. pone.0036626. · DOI · Paper page
- Blaizot A, Veettil S K, Saidoung P, Moreno-Garcia C F et al. Using artificial intelligence methods for systematic review in health sciences: A systematic review. Res Synth Methods 2022; 13: 353-362.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Khraisha, Q., Put, S., Kappenberg, J., Warraitch, A., & Hadfield, K. (2023) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2310.17526 · Cited by 268 · see citing works
Khraisha, Q., Put, S., Kappenberg, J., Warraitch, A., & Hadfield, K. (2024) · Research Synthesis Methods · doi:10.1002/jrsm.1715 · Cited by 269 · see citing works
Lieberum, J.-L., Toews, M., Metzendorf, M.-I., Heilmeyer, F., Siemens, W., Haverkamp, C., Böhringer, D., Meerpohl, J. J., & Eisele-Metzger, A. (2025) · Journal of Clinical Epidemiology · doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2025.111746 · Cited by 148 · see citing works
Performance of two large language models for data extraction in evidence synthesis
Konet, A., Thomas, I., Gartlehner, G., Kahwati, L., Hilscher, R., Kugley, S., Crotty, K., Viswanathan, M., & Chew, R. (2024) · Research Synthesis Methods · doi:10.1002/jrsm.1732 · Cited by 79 · see citing works
A bibliometric analysis of the rise of ChatGPT in medical research
Barrington, N. M., Gupta, N., Musmar, B., Doyle, D., Panico, N., Godbole, N., Reardon, T., & D’Amico, R. S. (2023) · Medical Sciences · doi:10.3390/medsci11030061 · Cited by 69 · see citing works
ChatGPT-4o can serve as the second rater for data extraction in systematic reviews
Motzfeldt Jensen, M., Brix Danielsen, M., Riis, J., Assifuah Kristjansen, K., Andersen, S., Okubo, Y., & Jørgensen, M. G. (2025) · PLOS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0313401 · Cited by 60 · see citing works
Mahmoudi, H., Chang, D., Lee, H., Ghaffarzadegan, N., & Jalali, M. S. (2025) · JMIR AI · doi:10.2196/68097 · Cited by 35 · see citing works
Sercombe, J., Bryant, Z., & Wilson, J. (2025) · JMIR Formative Research · doi:10.2196/68666 · Cited by 16 · see citing works
Accelerating the pace and accuracy of systematic reviews using AI: a validation study
Zhan, J., Suvada, K., Xu, M., Tian, W., Cara, K. C., Wallace, T. C., & Ali, M. K. (2025) · Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1186/s13643-025-02997-8 · Cited by 12 · see citing works
- Authors
- Mahuli, S. A., Rai, A., Mahuli, A. V., & Kumar, A.
- Affiliations
- Rajendra Institute of Medical Sciences (IN)
- Corresponding author
- Mahuli, Simpy Amit
- Rai, Arpita
- Mahuli, Amit Vasant
- Kumar, Ansul
- Venue
- British Dental Journal
- Published
- 2023-07-28
- Volume
- 235
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 90-92
- ISSN
- 0007-0610 (ISSN-L)
- 1476-5373
- OpenAlex
- W4385297391
- Cited by
- 61
- References
- 1
- Citations by year
- 2026: 8 · 2025: 26 · 2024: 19 · 2023: 8
- Type
- other
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- BDJ (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- 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
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › History and Philosophy of Science › Academic Writing and Publishing
- Keywords
- ChatGPT, large language models, systematic reviews, meta-analysis, literature searching, evidence-based decision making, AI-assisted research
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
