%0 Journal Article
%@ 1438-8871
%I JMIR Publications
%V 25
%N 
%P e46089
%T Guidelines, Consensus Statements, and Standards for the Use of Artificial Intelligence in Medicine: Systematic Review
%A Wang,Ying
%A Li,Nian
%A Chen,Lingmin
%A Wu,Miaomiao
%A Meng,Sha
%A Dai,Zelei
%A Zhang,Yonggang
%A Clarke,Mike
%+ Department of Periodical Press, National Clinical Research Center for Geriatrics, Chinese Evidence-based Medicine Center, Nursing Key Laboratory of Sichuan Province, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, No. 37 Guoxue Lane, Chengdu, 610041, China, 86 28 85421729, jebm_zhang@yahoo.com
%K artificial intelligence
%K clinical practice
%K guidelines
%K consensus statements
%K standards
%K systematic review
%D 2023
%7 22.11.2023
%9 Review
%J J Med Internet Res
%G English
%X Background: The application of artificial intelligence (AI) in the delivery of health care is a promising area, and guidelines, consensus statements, and standards on AI regarding various topics have been developed. Objective: We performed this study to assess the quality of guidelines, consensus statements, and standards in the field of AI for medicine and to provide a foundation for recommendations about the future development of AI guidelines. Methods: We searched 7 electronic databases from database establishment to April 6, 2022, and screened articles involving AI guidelines, consensus statements, and standards for eligibility. The AGREE II (Appraisal of Guidelines for Research & Evaluation II) and RIGHT (Reporting Items for Practice Guidelines in Healthcare) tools were used to assess the methodological and reporting quality of the included articles. Results: This systematic review included 19 guideline articles, 14 consensus statement articles, and 3 standard articles published between 2019 and 2022. Their content involved disease screening, diagnosis, and treatment; AI intervention trial reporting; AI imaging development and collaboration; AI data application; and AI ethics governance and applications. Our quality assessment revealed that the average overall AGREE II score was 4.0 (range 2.2-5.5; 7-point Likert scale) and the mean overall reporting rate of the RIGHT tool was 49.4% (range 25.7%-77.1%). Conclusions: The results indicated important differences in the quality of different AI guidelines, consensus statements, and standards. We made recommendations for improving their methodological and reporting quality. Trial Registration: PROSPERO International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (CRD42022321360); https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=321360 
%M 37991819
%R 10.2196/46089
%U https://www.jmir.org/2023/1/e46089
%U https://doi.org/10.2196/46089
%U http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37991819