# Systematic reviews

Naudet, Plöderl and colleagues re-ran the 2016 and 2020 meta-analyses of fluoxetine (Prozac) for depression in children and adolescents and found that their disagreement comes down to whether one 2006 trial of 40 children in Iran is included; excluding that trial's data made fluoxetine's outsized benefit over placebo disappear, prompting the researchers to call on guideline committees to review their recommendations.

Naudet, Plöderl and colleagues re-ran the 2016 and 2020 meta-analyses of fluoxetine (Prozac) for depression in children and adolescents and found that their disagreement comes down to whether one 2006 trial of 40 children in Iran is included; excluding that trial's data made fluoxetine's outsized benefit over placebo disappear, prompting the researchers to call on guideline committees to review their recommendations.

This study designed a zero-shot prompted LLM pipeline as a virtual mimic of a human reviewer for the QUIPS framework and applied it to 298 articles from previously published systematic reviews of prognosis studies in neurology across three domains (epilepsy, traumatic brain injury, stroke), finding limited LLM-human agreement (weighted kappa = 0.22, 95% CI 0.12-0.33) while tentatively suggesting, based on a small sample (n=5), that it may not be inferior to human-human agreement (weighted kappa = -0.25, 95% CI -1.04-0.54), with Wilcoxon signed-rank tests statistically significant (p < 0.05) across four bias domains and overall risk scores, and rank-biserial correlations demonstrating human raters' tendency to assign higher risk scores than LLM counterparts.

This study designed a zero-shot prompted LLM pipeline as a virtual mimic of a human reviewer for the QUIPS framework and applied it to 298 articles from previously published systematic reviews of prognosis studies in neurology across three domains (epilepsy, traumatic brain injury, stroke), finding limited LLM-human agreement (weighted kappa = 0.22, 95% CI 0.12-0.33) while tentatively suggesting, based on a small sample (n=5), that it may not be inferior to human-human agreement (weighted kappa = -0.25, 95% CI -1.04-0.54), with Wilcoxon signed-rank tests statistically significant (p < 0.05) across four bias domains and overall risk scores, and rank-biserial correlations demonstrating human raters' tendency to assign higher risk scores than LLM counterparts.