Artificial intelligence-based clinical decision support in the emergency department: A scoping review.

IF 3.4 3区 医学 Q1 EMERGENCY MEDICINE Academic Emergency Medicine Pub Date : 2025-02-04 DOI:10.1111/acem.15099
Hashim Kareemi, Krishan Yadav, Courtney Price, Niklas Bobrovitz, Andrew Meehan, Henry Li, Gautam Goel, Sameer Masood, Lars Grant, Maxim Ben-Yakov, Wojtek Michalowski, Christian Vaillancourt
{"title":"Artificial intelligence-based clinical decision support in the emergency department: A scoping review.","authors":"Hashim Kareemi, Krishan Yadav, Courtney Price, Niklas Bobrovitz, Andrew Meehan, Henry Li, Gautam Goel, Sameer Masood, Lars Grant, Maxim Ben-Yakov, Wojtek Michalowski, Christian Vaillancourt","doi":"10.1111/acem.15099","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>Artificial intelligence (AI)-based clinical decision support (CDS) has the potential to augment high-stakes clinical decisions in the emergency department (ED). However, its current usage and translation to implementation remains poorly understood. We asked: (1) What is the current landscape of AI-CDS for individual patient care in the ED? and (2) What phases of development have AI-CDS tools achieved?</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We performed a scoping review of AI for prognostic, diagnostic, and treatment decisions regarding individual ED patient care. We searched five databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Central, Scopus, Web of Science) and gray literature sources from January 1, 2010, to December 11, 2023. We adhered to guidelines from the Joanna Briggs Institute and PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews. We published our protocol on Open Science Framework (DOI 10.17605/OSF.IO/FDZ3Y).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of 5168 unique records identified, we selected 605 studies for inclusion. The majority (369, 61%) were published in 2021-2023. The studies ranged over a variety of clinical applications, patient populations, and AI model types. Prognostic outcomes were most commonly assessed (270, 44.6%), followed by diagnostic (193, 31.9%) and disposition (115, 19%). Most studies remained in the earliest phase of preclinical development (572, 94.5%) with few advancing to later phases (33, 5.5%).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>By thoroughly mapping the landscape of AI-CDS in the ED, we demonstrate a rapidly increasing volume of studies covering a breadth of clinical applications, yet few have achieved advanced phases of testing or implementation. A more granular understanding of the barriers and facilitators to implementing AI-CDS in the ED is needed.</p>","PeriodicalId":7105,"journal":{"name":"Academic Emergency Medicine","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Academic Emergency Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/acem.15099","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EMERGENCY MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: Artificial intelligence (AI)-based clinical decision support (CDS) has the potential to augment high-stakes clinical decisions in the emergency department (ED). However, its current usage and translation to implementation remains poorly understood. We asked: (1) What is the current landscape of AI-CDS for individual patient care in the ED? and (2) What phases of development have AI-CDS tools achieved?

Methods: We performed a scoping review of AI for prognostic, diagnostic, and treatment decisions regarding individual ED patient care. We searched five databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Central, Scopus, Web of Science) and gray literature sources from January 1, 2010, to December 11, 2023. We adhered to guidelines from the Joanna Briggs Institute and PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews. We published our protocol on Open Science Framework (DOI 10.17605/OSF.IO/FDZ3Y).

Results: Of 5168 unique records identified, we selected 605 studies for inclusion. The majority (369, 61%) were published in 2021-2023. The studies ranged over a variety of clinical applications, patient populations, and AI model types. Prognostic outcomes were most commonly assessed (270, 44.6%), followed by diagnostic (193, 31.9%) and disposition (115, 19%). Most studies remained in the earliest phase of preclinical development (572, 94.5%) with few advancing to later phases (33, 5.5%).

Conclusions: By thoroughly mapping the landscape of AI-CDS in the ED, we demonstrate a rapidly increasing volume of studies covering a breadth of clinical applications, yet few have achieved advanced phases of testing or implementation. A more granular understanding of the barriers and facilitators to implementing AI-CDS in the ED is needed.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Academic Emergency Medicine
Academic Emergency Medicine 医学-急救医学
CiteScore
7.60
自引率
6.80%
发文量
207
审稿时长
3-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Academic Emergency Medicine (AEM) is the official monthly publication of the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine (SAEM) and publishes information relevant to the practice, educational advancements, and investigation of emergency medicine. It is the second-largest peer-reviewed scientific journal in the specialty of emergency medicine. The goal of AEM is to advance the science, education, and clinical practice of emergency medicine, to serve as a voice for the academic emergency medicine community, and to promote SAEM''s goals and objectives. Members and non-members worldwide depend on this journal for translational medicine relevant to emergency medicine, as well as for clinical news, case studies and more. Each issue contains information relevant to the research, educational advancements, and practice in emergency medicine. Subject matter is diverse, including preclinical studies, clinical topics, health policy, and educational methods. The research of SAEM members contributes significantly to the scientific content and development of the journal.
期刊最新文献
Global emergency medicine: A scoping review of the literature from 2023. The problem with how we view medical (and diagnostic) error in emergency medicine. Response to Tangkamolsuk and La RE: Online public response to emergency department diagnostic error report: A qualitative study. Abortion care in the emergency department: A national survey of emergency physicians' perspectives. Implementation and assessment of a one-month sabbatical program for faculty in an academic emergency department.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1