Author: van de Sande, Davy; van Genderen, Michel E.; Huiskens, Joost; Gommers, Diederik; van Bommel, Jasper
Title: Moving from bytes to bedside: a systematic review on the use of artificial intelligence in the intensive care unit Cord-id: ffj9wkod Document date: 2021_6_5
ID: ffj9wkod
Snippet: PURPOSE: Due to the increasing demand for intensive care unit (ICU) treatment, and to improve quality and efficiency of care, there is a need for adequate and efficient clinical decision-making. The advancement of artificial intelligence (AI) technologies has resulted in the development of prediction models, which might aid clinical decision-making. This systematic review seeks to give a contemporary overview of the current maturity of AI in the ICU, the research methods behind these studies, an
Document: PURPOSE: Due to the increasing demand for intensive care unit (ICU) treatment, and to improve quality and efficiency of care, there is a need for adequate and efficient clinical decision-making. The advancement of artificial intelligence (AI) technologies has resulted in the development of prediction models, which might aid clinical decision-making. This systematic review seeks to give a contemporary overview of the current maturity of AI in the ICU, the research methods behind these studies, and the risk of bias in these studies. METHODS: A systematic search was conducted in Embase, Medline, Web of Science Core Collection and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases to identify eligible studies. Studies using AI to analyze ICU data were considered eligible. Specifically, the study design, study aim, dataset size, level of validation, level of readiness, and the outcomes of clinical trials were extracted. Risk of bias in individual studies was evaluated by the Prediction model Risk Of Bias ASsessment Tool (PROBAST). RESULTS: Out of 6455 studies identified through literature search, 494 were included. The most common study design was retrospective [476 studies (96.4% of all studies)] followed by prospective observational [8 (1.6%)] and clinical [10 (2%)] trials. 378 (80.9%) retrospective studies were classified as high risk of bias. No studies were identified that reported on the outcome evaluation of an AI model integrated in routine clinical practice. CONCLUSION: The vast majority of developed ICU-AI models remain within the testing and prototyping environment; only a handful were actually evaluated in clinical practice. A uniform and structured approach can support the development, safe delivery, and implementation of AI to determine clinical benefit in the ICU. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s00134-021-06446-7.
Search related documents:
Co phrase search for related documents- abstract title and local practice: 1
- abstract title and logistic regression: 1, 2, 3, 4
- abstract title and low quality: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15
- abstract title screen and low quality: 1, 2
- action plan and logistic regression: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5
- additional search and low quality: 1, 2
- local practice and logistic regression: 1, 2, 3, 4
- local practice and low quality: 1, 2, 3
- logistic regression and low quality: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22
Co phrase search for related documents, hyperlinks ordered by date