Abstract
Medical evidence synthesis, typically done by systematic reviews, requires extensive manual effort across stages such as searching, screening, extraction, and synthesis, making them slow and costly. These limitations hinder timely updates and rapid responses during health crises. Interests in technology-assisted evidence synthesis have been increasing, driven by artificial intelligence (AI) and large language models (LLMs). In 2024, four major networks including the Cochrane, Campbell Collaboration, Joanna Briggs Institute and Collaboration for Environmental Evidence jointly launched an AI Methods Group to advance automation in evidence synthesis. This chapter presents a large-scale computational analysis of technology-assisted MES across 7,271 Cochrane reviews (2010– 2024), identifying computer tools—software, packages, or algorithmic implementations—used at different review stages via an LLM-human collaborative annotation pipeline. A multi-LLM mechanism combining suggestion, verification, and self-critical questioning achieved high-recall tool extraction. Evaluation against five “gold-standard” tool lists showed major gains: approximately 100 additional tools were identified compared to each existing review-based, database-based, and Cochrane-curated gold standards. Eventually, a list of in total 514 tools was compiled. Two annotators verified all candidates within two days, demonstrating notable efficiency. A follow-up bibliometric analysis provides the first computational map of technology use in Cochrane evidence synthesis, revealing trends across time, domains, and regions.
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I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the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 are available in the present study and online from the accompanying Github repository of the project.





