Large language models in systematic review and meta-analysis of surgical treatments for vaginal vault prolapse.
systematic_review · Level I
Where this comes from
- Record sourced from PubMed, PMID 41714807.
- Also identified by DOI 10.1038/s41746-026-02431-w and PMC identifier 13031965.
- Licence recorded as CC BY-NC-ND.
- Because redistribution is not established, this page shows the abstract only. Follow the links below for the full text.
Abstract
Systematic reviews provide the highest level of evidence but remain resource-intensive. We evaluated the performance of a large language model (LLM; ChatGPT, OpenAI) in a PRISMA-guided review of randomized controlled trials on vaginal vault prolapse surgery. Prompts were carefully designed to minimize errors, and outputs were verified. Each task was completed within minutes. For title/abstract screening, recall was 69.8% and precision 85.7% (κ = 0.77); full-text agreement 94.1-100% (κ = 0.82-1); data extraction accuracy 87.5-99.7%. From 18 RCTs (1668 women), sacrocolpopexy (SC) showed higher anatomic success than sacrospinous fixation (SSF) (OR 1.42, 95% CI 0.71-2.84). Transvaginal mesh improved 3-year objective success compared with SSF (OR 1.84, 95% CI 1.13-2.99) but had higher reoperation rates (5-16% vs 2-4%) than SC. We did not find conclusive evidence that any single technique is superior; most comparisons were underpowered, with wide confidence intervals and substantial heterogeneity. All LLM-derived statistical results were identical to those from conventional R analyses, confirming robustness. Validated LLM workflows can enable more efficient and scalable evidence synthesis.