» Articles » PMID: 32908283

Reporting Guidelines for Clinical Trial Reports for Interventions Involving Artificial Intelligence: the CONSORT-AI Extension

Overview
Journal Nat Med
Date 2020 Sep 10
PMID 32908283
Citations 221
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

The CONSORT 2010 statement provides minimum guidelines for reporting randomized trials. Its widespread use has been instrumental in ensuring transparency in the evaluation of new interventions. More recently, there has been a growing recognition that interventions involving artificial intelligence (AI) need to undergo rigorous, prospective evaluation to demonstrate impact on health outcomes. The CONSORT-AI (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials-Artificial Intelligence) extension is a new reporting guideline for clinical trials evaluating interventions with an AI component. It was developed in parallel with its companion statement for clinical trial protocols: SPIRIT-AI (Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials-Artificial Intelligence). Both guidelines were developed through a staged consensus process involving literature review and expert consultation to generate 29 candidate items, which were assessed by an international multi-stakeholder group in a two-stage Delphi survey (103 stakeholders), agreed upon in a two-day consensus meeting (31 stakeholders) and refined through a checklist pilot (34 participants). The CONSORT-AI extension includes 14 new items that were considered sufficiently important for AI interventions that they should be routinely reported in addition to the core CONSORT 2010 items. CONSORT-AI recommends that investigators provide clear descriptions of the AI intervention, including instructions and skills required for use, the setting in which the AI intervention is integrated, the handling of inputs and outputs of the AI intervention, the human-AI interaction and provision of an analysis of error cases. CONSORT-AI will help promote transparency and completeness in reporting clinical trials for AI interventions. It will assist editors and peer reviewers, as well as the general readership, to understand, interpret and critically appraise the quality of clinical trial design and risk of bias in the reported outcomes.

Citing Articles

Enhancing Methodological Rigor in AI-Driven Systematic Reviews: Addressing Key Limitations in Predicting TACE Outcomes.

Lu Y, Wan D Dig Dis Sci. 2025; .

PMID: 40088412 DOI: 10.1007/s10620-025-08969-1.


Transparency and Representation in Clinical Research Utilizing Artificial Intelligence in Oncology: A Scoping Review.

DAmiano A, Cheunkarndee T, Azoba C, Chen K, Mak R, Perni S Cancer Med. 2025; 14(5):e70728.

PMID: 40059400 PMC: 11891267. DOI: 10.1002/cam4.70728.


Externally validated and clinically useful machine learning algorithms to support patient-related decision-making in oncology: a scoping review.

Santos C, Amorim-Lopes M BMC Med Res Methodol. 2025; 25(1):45.

PMID: 39984835 PMC: 11843972. DOI: 10.1186/s12874-025-02463-y.


Checklist Approach to Developing and Implementing AI in Clinical Settings: Instrument Development Study.

Owoyemi A, Osuchukwu J, Salwei M, Boyd A JMIRx Med. 2025; 6:e65565.

PMID: 39977249 PMC: 11867147. DOI: 10.2196/65565.


[Ethical aspects of the development, authorization and implementation of applications in ophthalmology based on artificial intelligence : Statement of the German Ophthalmological Society (DOG) and the Professional Association of German...].

Ophthalmologie. 2025; .

PMID: 39964395 DOI: 10.1007/s00347-025-02189-8.


References
1.
Hopewell S, Clarke M, Moher D, Wager E, Middleton P, Altman D . CONSORT for reporting randomised trials in journal and conference abstracts. Lancet. 2008; 371(9609):281-3. DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(07)61835-2. View

2.
Glasziou P, Altman D, Bossuyt P, Boutron I, Clarke M, Julious S . Reducing waste from incomplete or unusable reports of biomedical research. Lancet. 2014; 383(9913):267-76. DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(13)62228-X. View

3.
Collins G, Moons K . Reporting of artificial intelligence prediction models. Lancet. 2019; 393(10181):1577-1579. DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(19)30037-6. View

4.
Juni P, Altman D, Egger M . Systematic reviews in health care: Assessing the quality of controlled clinical trials. BMJ. 2001; 323(7303):42-6. PMC: 1120670. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.323.7303.42. View

5.
Lin H, Li R, Liu Z, Chen J, Yang Y, Chen H . Diagnostic Efficacy and Therapeutic Decision-making Capacity of an Artificial Intelligence Platform for Childhood Cataracts in Eye Clinics: A Multicentre Randomized Controlled Trial. EClinicalMedicine. 2019; 9:52-59. PMC: 6510889. DOI: 10.1016/j.eclinm.2019.03.001. View