Artificial Intelligence and Automation in Evidence Synthesis: An Investigation of Methods Employed in Cochrane, Campbell Collaboration, and Environmental Evidence Reviews

Automation, including Machine Learning (ML), is increasingly being explored to reduce the time and effort involved in evidence syntheses, yet its adoption and reporting practices remain under-examined across disciplines (e.g., health sciences, education, and policy). This review assesses the use of automation, including ML-based techniques, in 2271 evidence syntheses published between 2017 and 2024 in the <i>Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews</i>, and the journals <i>Campbell Systematic Reviews</i>, and <i>Environmental Evidence</i>. We focus on automation across four review steps: search, screening, data extraction, and analysis/synthesis. We systematically identified eligible studies from the three sources and developed a classification system to distinguish between manual, rules-based, ML-enabled, and ML-embedded tools. We then extracted data on tool use, ML integration, reporting practices, motivations for (and against) ML adoption, and the application of stopping criteria for ML-assisted screening. Only ~5% of studies explicitly reported using ML, with most applications limited to screening tasks. Although ~12% employed ML-enabled tools, ~90% of those did not clarify whether ML functionalities were actually utilized. Living reviews showed higher relative ML integration (~15%), but overall uptake remains limited. Previous work has shown that common barriers to broader adoption included limited guidance, low user awareness, and concerns over reliability. Despite ML's potential to streamline evidence syntheses, its integration remains limited and inconsistently reported. Improved transparency, clearer reporting standards, and greater user training are needed to support responsible adoption. As the research literature grows, automation will become increasingly essential-but only if challenges in usability, reproducibility, and trust are addressed.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Cochrane Evidence Synthesis and Methods
Published
2025-08-28
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1002/cesm.70046
Citations
2
Primary Topic
Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
1.31
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Artificial Intelligence and Automation in Evidence Synthesis: An Investigation of Methods Employed in Cochrane, Campbell Collaboration, and Environmental Evidence Reviews

Haoyong Lan, Sarah Young, Melanie Gainey, Kristen L. Scotti
2 citations
Cochrane Evidence Synthesis and Methods
Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
1.31
article

Artificial Intelligence and Automation in Evidence Synthesis: An Investigation of Methods Employed in Cochrane, Campbell Collaboration, and Environmental Evidence Reviews

Haoyong Lan, Sarah Young, Melanie Gainey, Kristen L. Scotti
article en
2 citations

Abstract

Automation, including Machine Learning (ML), is increasingly being explored to reduce the time and effort involved in evidence syntheses, yet its adoption and reporting practices remain under-examined across disciplines (e.g., health sciences, education, and policy). This review assesses the use of automation, including ML-based techniques, in 2271 evidence syntheses published between 2017 and 2024 in the <i>Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews</i>, and the journals <i>Campbell Systematic Reviews</i>, and <i>Environmental Evidence</i>. We focus on automation across four review steps: search, screening, data extraction, and analysis/synthesis. We systematically identified eligible studies from the three sources and developed a classification system to distinguish between manual, rules-based, ML-enabled, and ML-embedded tools. We then extracted data on tool use, ML integration, reporting practices, motivations for (and against) ML adoption, and the application of stopping criteria for ML-assisted screening. Only ~5% of studies explicitly reported using ML, with most applications limited to screening tasks. Although ~12% employed ML-enabled tools, ~90% of those did not clarify whether ML functionalities were actually utilized. Living reviews showed higher relative ML integration (~15%), but overall uptake remains limited. Previous work has shown that common barriers to broader adoption included limited guidance, low user awareness, and concerns over reliability. Despite ML's potential to streamline evidence syntheses, its integration remains limited and inconsistently reported. Improved transparency, clearer reporting standards, and greater user training are needed to support responsible adoption. As the research literature grows, automation will become increasingly essential-but only if challenges in usability, reproducibility, and trust are addressed.

Cochrane Evidence Synthesis and MethodsVol. 3(5)
Carnegie Mellon University (US)
Openalex Percentile: Top 15%
Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
1.31
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.

Artificial Intelligence and Automation in Evidence Synthesis: An Investigation of Methods Employed in Cochrane, Campbell Collaboration, and Environmental Evidence Reviews — Haoyong Lan, Sarah Young, et al. · Cochrane Evidence Synthesis and Methods (2025) | TGRS Research Map | TGRS