Cited by 110Meta-analysis and systematic reviewsArtificial Intelligence in Healthcare and EducationClinical practice guidelines implementation

Quality assessment standards in artificial intelligence diagnostic accuracy systematic reviews: a meta-research study

Open access
Jayakumar, Shruti, Sounderajah, Viknesh, Normahani, Pasha, Harling, Leanne, Markar, Sheraz R., Ashrafian, Hutan, Darzi, Ara·2022·npj Digital Medicine

Abstract

Artificial intelligence (AI) centred diagnostic systems are increasingly recognised as robust solutions in healthcare delivery pathways. In turn, there has been a concurrent rise in secondary research studies regarding these technologies in order to influence key clinical and policymaking decisions. It is therefore essential that these studies accurately appraise methodological quality and risk of bias within shortlisted trials and reports. In order to assess whether this critical step is performed, we undertook a meta-research study evaluating adherence to the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2 (QUADAS-2) tool within AI diagnostic accuracy systematic reviews. A literature search was conducted on all studies published from 2000 to December 2020. Of 50 included reviews, 36 performed the quality assessment, of which 27 utilised the QUADAS-2 tool. Bias was reported across all four domains of QUADAS-2. Two hundred forty-three of 423 studies (57.5%) across all systematic reviews utilising QUADAS-2 reported a high or unclear risk of bias in the patient selection domain, 110 (26%) reported a high or unclear risk of bias in the index test domain, 121 (28.6%) in the reference standard domain and 157 (37.1%) in the flow and timing domain. This study demonstrates the incomplete uptake of quality assessment tools in reviews of AI-based diagnostic accuracy studies and highlights inconsistent reporting across all domains of quality assessment. Poor standards of reporting act as barriers to clinical implementation. The creation of an AI-specific extension for quality assessment tools of diagnostic accuracy AI studies may facilitate the safe translation of AI tools into clinical practice.

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 · 10.1038/s41746-021-00544-y

Cites

81 of 81 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?

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
Jayakumar, S., Sounderajah, V., Normahani, P., Harling, L., Markar, S. R., Ashrafian, H., & Darzi, A.
Affiliations
  • Imperial College London (GB)
  • Guy's Hospital (GB)
Corresponding author
Ashrafian, Hutan
Venue
npj Digital Medicine
Published
2022-01-27
Volume
5
Issue
1
Pages
11-11
ISSN
2398-6352 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4210788416
Cited by
110
References
81
Citations by year
2026: 21 · 2025: 35 · 2024: 30 · 2023: 16 · 2022: 8
FWCI
7.31
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • npj Digital Medicine (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • Spiral (Imperial College London) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Funders
National Institute for Health and Care Research (NF-SI-0510-10186, NF-SI-0617-10038, CL-2021-21-001)
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
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Clinical practice guidelines implementation
Keywords
artificial intelligence, diagnostic accuracy, QUADAS-2, quality assessment, risk of bias, systematic reviews, reporting guidelines, patient selection bias, clinical implementation of AI

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