Abstract
A growing volume of evidence marks the potential of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in medicine, in improving diagnostic accuracy, clinical decision support, risk/event prediction, drug discovery, and patient management. However, the continuous integration of AI into clinical settings requires the development of up-to-date and robust guidelines and standard frameworks that consider the evolving challenges of AI implementation in medicine. This review evaluates these guidelines’ quality and summarizes ethical frameworks, best practices, and recommendations.
The Appraisal of Guidelines, Research, and Evaluation (AGREE II) tool was used to assess the quality of guidelines based on six domains: scope and purpose, stakeholder involvement, rigor of development, clarity of presentation, applicability, and editorial independence. The protocol of this review including the eligibility criteria, the search strategy data extraction sheet and methods, was published prior to the actual review with International Registered Report Identifier (IRRID) of (DERR1-10.2196/47105).
The initial search resulted in 4,975 studies from two databases and five studies from manual search. Nine articles were selected for data extraction based on the eligibility criteria. We found that while guidelines generally excel in scope, purpose, and editorial independence, there is significant variability in applicability and the rigour of guideline development. Well-established initiatives such as DECIDE-AI, SPIRIT-AI, and CONSORT-AI have shown high quality, particularly in terms of stakeholder involvement. However, applicability remains a prominent challenge among the guidelines. We conclude that the reproducibility, ethical and environmental aspects of AI in medicine still need attention from both medical and AI communities. This review emphasizes the crucial need for high-quality guidelines and opens a new avenue in evaluating guidelines themselves. Our work highlights the need for working toward the development of integrated and comprehensive reporting guidelines that adhere to the principles of Findability, Accessibility, Interoperability and Reusability (FAIR). This alignment is essential for fostering a cultural shift towards transparency and open science, which are pivotal milestone for sustainable digital health research.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
This study did not receive any funding
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.
Yes
Data Availability
All data produced in the present study are available upon reasonable request to the authors
