Articles
DOI DOI: 10.66434/ijssr.v1i1.538

Systematic reviews in the era of artificial intelligence: Opportunities, challenges, and the future of evidence synthesis

Kananga Robert Mukuna1
  1. 1 University of the Free State

Abstract

Systematic reviews remain the cornerstone of evidence-based practice, providing a rigorous and transparent synthesis of research findings across diverse disciplines. However, the exponential growth of scientific literature has placed considerable pressure on traditional review methodologies, which are increasingly constrained by time, resources, and human capacity. In response, artificial intelligence (AI) has emerged as a transformative force in evidence synthesis, offering new opportunities to enhance the efficiency, accuracy, and scalability of systematic reviews. This article critically examines the integration of AI into the systematic review process, with particular attention to its applications across key stages, including literature searching, screening, data extraction, quality appraisal, and evidence synthesis. It further explores the benefits of AI, such as reduced workload, improved consistency, and accelerated review timelines, while also addressing important limitations, including algorithmic bias, lack of transparency, reproducibility concerns, and ethical challenges. In addition, the article considers the evolving roles of researchers and academic journals in adapting to AI-driven methodologies, emphasising the need for new competencies, reporting standards, and editorial guidelines. The article concludes that the future of systematic reviews lies in a hybrid model in which human expertise and artificial intelligence collaborate to strengthen the rigor, responsiveness, and impact of evidence synthesis in the digital age.

How to Cite

Mukuna, K. R. (2026). Systematic reviews in the era of artificial intelligence: Opportunities, challenges, and the future of evidence synthesis. International Journal of Studies in Systematic Reviews, 1(1), 66–70. https://doi.org/10.66434/ijssr.v1i1.538
Endnote/Zotero/Mendeley (RIS) BibTeX

References

  1. Bender, E. M., Gebru, T., McMillan-Major, A., & Shmitchell, S. (2021). On the Dangers of Stochastic Parrots: Can Language Models Be Too Big? In Proceedings of the 2021 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency (pp. 610–623). Association for Computing Machinery.
  2. https://doi.org/10.1145/3442188.3445922
  3. Bolaños, F., Salatino, A., Osborne, F., & Motta, E. (2024). Artificial intelligence for literature reviews: opportunities and challenges: F. Bolaños et al. Artificial Intelligence Review, 57(10), 259. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10462-024-10902-3
  4. Chandler, J., Cumpston, M., Li, T., Page, M. J., & Welch, V. J. H. W. (2019). Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. Hoboken: Wiley, 4(1002), 14651858.
  5. Clark, J., Barton, B., Albarqouni, L., Byambasuren, O., Jowsey, T., Keogh, J., ... & Jones, M. (2025). Generative artificial intelligence use in evidence synthesis: A systematic review. Research Synthesis Methods, 16(4), 601–619. https://doi.org/10.1017/rsm.2025.16
  6. Doskaliuk, B., Zimba, O., Yessirkepov, M., Klishch, I., & Yatsyshyn, R. (2025). Artificial Intelligence in Peer Review: Enhancing Efficiency While Preserving Integrity. Journal of Korean medical science, 40(7), e92. https://doi.org/10.3346/jkms.2025.40.e92
  7. Gates, A., Gates, M., Sebastianski, M., Guitard, S., Elliott, S. A., & Hartling, L. (2020). The semi-automation of title and abstract screening: a retrospective exploration of ways to leverage Abstrackr’s relevance predictions in systematic and rapid reviews. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 20(1), 139. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-020-01031-w
  8. Ge, L., Agrawal, R., Singer, M., Kannapiran, P., De Castro Molina, J. A., Teow, K. L., ... & Abisheganaden, J. A. (2024). Leveraging artificial intelligence to enhance systematic reviews in health research: advanced tools and challenges. Systematic reviews, 13(1), 269. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-024-02682-2
  9. Gupta, R. (2025). Artificial Intelligence (AI)-What it is, and its uses-A Users Guide.
  10. Gusenbauer, M., & Haddaway, N. R. (2020). Which academic search systems are suitable for systematic reviews or meta‐analyses? Evaluating retrieval qualities of Google Scholar, PubMed, and 26 other resources. Research synthesis methods, 11(2), 181–217. https://doi.org/10.1002/jrsm.1378
  11. Hogan, A., Blomqvist, E., Cochez, M., d’Amato, C., Melo, G. D., Gutierrez, C., ... & Zimmermann, A. (2021). Knowledge graphs. ACM Computing Surveys (Csur), 54(4), 1–37. https://doi.org/10.1145/3447772
  12. Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., & Altman, D. G. (2009). Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. Bmj, 339. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.b2535
  13. O’Mara-Eves, A., Brunton, G., McDaid, D., Oliver, S., Kavanagh, J., Jamal, F., ... & Thomas, J. (2013). Community engagement to reduce inequalities in health: a systematic review, meta-analysis and economic analysis. Public Health Research, 1(4), 1–526. https://doi.org/10.3310/phr01040
  14. Page, M. J., McKenzie, J. E., Bossuyt, P. M., Boutron, I., Hoffmann, T. C., Mulrow, C. D., ... & Moher, D. (2021). The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ, 372. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n71
  15. Sousa, M. S. A., Peiris, S., Figueiró, M. F., Haby, M. M., Baraldi, A. C., Reveiz, L., & Souza, J. P. (2026). The landscape of artificial intelligence tools and platforms for evidence synthesis: a scoping review. Systematic reviews, 15(1), 82. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-025-02842-y
  16. Treviño, M., & Arias-Carrión, O. (2025). Artificial Intelligence in Systematic Reviews: Overcoming Reproducibility, Bias, and Validation Challenges. Preprints, 2025061895. https://doi.org/10.20944/preprints202506.1895.v1
  17. United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO). (2021). UNESCO recommendation on open science. UNESCO Digital Library. https://doi.org/10.54677/MNMH8546
  18. Wilkinson, M. D., Dumontier, M., Aalbersberg, I. J., Appleton, G., Axton, M., Baak, A., ... & Mons, B. (2016). The FAIR Guiding Principles for scientific data management and stewardship. Scientific data, 3(1), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1038/sdata.2016.18