医疗专业人员的人工智能是在为患者服务吗? 算法决策对患者的利弊系统综述协议》。

IF 6.3 4区 医学 Q1 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL Systematic Reviews Pub Date : 2024-09-06 DOI:10.1186/s13643-024-02646-6
Christoph Wilhelm, Anke Steckelberg, Felix G Rebitschek
{"title":"医疗专业人员的人工智能是在为患者服务吗? 算法决策对患者的利弊系统综述协议》。","authors":"Christoph Wilhelm, Anke Steckelberg, Felix G Rebitschek","doi":"10.1186/s13643-024-02646-6","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Algorithmic decision-making (ADM) utilises algorithms to collect and process data and develop models to make or support decisions. Advances in artificial intelligence (AI) have led to the development of support systems that can be superior to medical professionals without AI support in certain tasks. However, whether patients can benefit from this remains unclear. The aim of this systematic review is to assess the current evidence on patient-relevant benefits and harms, such as improved survival rates and reduced treatment-related complications, when healthcare professionals use ADM systems (developed using or working with AI) compared to healthcare professionals without AI-related ADM (standard care)-regardless of the clinical issues.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Following the PRISMA statement, MEDLINE and PubMed (via PubMed), Embase (via Elsevier) and IEEE Xplore will be searched using English free text terms in title/abstract, Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) terms and Embase Subject Headings (Emtree fields). Additional studies will be identified by contacting authors of included studies and through reference lists of included studies. Grey literature searches will be conducted in Google Scholar. Risk of bias will be assessed by using Cochrane's RoB 2 for randomised trials and ROBINS-I for non-randomised trials. Transparent reporting of the included studies will be assessed using the CONSORT-AI extension statement. Two researchers will screen, assess and extract from the studies independently, with a third in case of conflicts that cannot be resolved by discussion.</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>It is expected that there will be a substantial shortage of suitable studies that compare healthcare professionals with and without ADM systems concerning patient-relevant endpoints. This can be attributed to the prioritisation of technical quality criteria and, in some cases, clinical parameters over patient-relevant endpoints in the development of study designs. Furthermore, it is anticipated that a significant portion of the identified studies will exhibit relatively poor methodological quality and provide only limited generalisable results.</p><p><strong>Systematic review registration: </strong>This study is registered within PROSPERO (CRD42023412156).</p>","PeriodicalId":22162,"journal":{"name":"Systematic Reviews","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":6.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11378383/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Is artificial intelligence for medical professionals serving the patients?  : Protocol for a systematic review on patient-relevant benefits and harms of algorithmic decision-making.\",\"authors\":\"Christoph Wilhelm, Anke Steckelberg, Felix G Rebitschek\",\"doi\":\"10.1186/s13643-024-02646-6\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Algorithmic decision-making (ADM) utilises algorithms to collect and process data and develop models to make or support decisions. Advances in artificial intelligence (AI) have led to the development of support systems that can be superior to medical professionals without AI support in certain tasks. However, whether patients can benefit from this remains unclear. The aim of this systematic review is to assess the current evidence on patient-relevant benefits and harms, such as improved survival rates and reduced treatment-related complications, when healthcare professionals use ADM systems (developed using or working with AI) compared to healthcare professionals without AI-related ADM (standard care)-regardless of the clinical issues.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Following the PRISMA statement, MEDLINE and PubMed (via PubMed), Embase (via Elsevier) and IEEE Xplore will be searched using English free text terms in title/abstract, Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) terms and Embase Subject Headings (Emtree fields). Additional studies will be identified by contacting authors of included studies and through reference lists of included studies. Grey literature searches will be conducted in Google Scholar. Risk of bias will be assessed by using Cochrane's RoB 2 for randomised trials and ROBINS-I for non-randomised trials. Transparent reporting of the included studies will be assessed using the CONSORT-AI extension statement. Two researchers will screen, assess and extract from the studies independently, with a third in case of conflicts that cannot be resolved by discussion.</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>It is expected that there will be a substantial shortage of suitable studies that compare healthcare professionals with and without ADM systems concerning patient-relevant endpoints. This can be attributed to the prioritisation of technical quality criteria and, in some cases, clinical parameters over patient-relevant endpoints in the development of study designs. Furthermore, it is anticipated that a significant portion of the identified studies will exhibit relatively poor methodological quality and provide only limited generalisable results.</p><p><strong>Systematic review registration: </strong>This study is registered within PROSPERO (CRD42023412156).</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":22162,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Systematic Reviews\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":6.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-09-06\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11378383/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Systematic Reviews\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-024-02646-6\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Systematic Reviews","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-024-02646-6","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:算法决策(ADM算法决策(ADM)利用算法来收集和处理数据,并开发模型以做出或支持决策。人工智能(AI)的进步促进了支持系统的发展,在某些任务中,这些系统可以优于没有人工智能支持的医疗专业人员。然而,患者是否能从中受益仍不清楚。本系统性综述旨在评估目前与患者相关的益处和危害方面的证据,如与不使用人工智能相关ADM(标准护理)的医疗专业人员相比,医疗专业人员使用ADM系统(使用人工智能开发或与人工智能合作)可提高存活率并减少与治疗相关的并发症--无论临床问题如何:按照 PRISMA 声明,将使用标题/摘要中的英文自由文本术语、医学主题词表(MeSH)术语和 Embase 主题词表(Emtree 字段)检索 MEDLINE 和 PubMed(通过 PubMed)、Embase(通过 Elsevier)以及 IEEE Xplore。其他研究将通过联系纳入研究的作者和参考文献目录来确定。灰色文献检索将在谷歌学术中进行。对于随机试验,将使用 Cochrane's RoB 2 评估偏倚风险;对于非随机试验,将使用 ROBINS-I 评估偏倚风险。将使用 CONSORT-AI 扩展声明对纳入研究的透明报告进行评估。两名研究人员将独立筛选、评估和摘录研究内容,如果出现无法通过讨论解决的冲突,将由第三名研究人员进行处理:预计在与患者相关的终点方面,对使用和未使用 ADM 系统的医护人员进行比较的合适研究将非常缺乏。这可能是由于在制定研究设计时优先考虑了技术质量标准,在某些情况下优先考虑了临床参数,而不是与患者相关的终点。此外,预计在已确定的研究中,有相当一部分研究的方法学质量相对较差,只能提供有限的可推广结果:本研究已在 PROSPERO 注册(CRD42023412156)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Is artificial intelligence for medical professionals serving the patients?  : Protocol for a systematic review on patient-relevant benefits and harms of algorithmic decision-making.

Background: Algorithmic decision-making (ADM) utilises algorithms to collect and process data and develop models to make or support decisions. Advances in artificial intelligence (AI) have led to the development of support systems that can be superior to medical professionals without AI support in certain tasks. However, whether patients can benefit from this remains unclear. The aim of this systematic review is to assess the current evidence on patient-relevant benefits and harms, such as improved survival rates and reduced treatment-related complications, when healthcare professionals use ADM systems (developed using or working with AI) compared to healthcare professionals without AI-related ADM (standard care)-regardless of the clinical issues.

Methods: Following the PRISMA statement, MEDLINE and PubMed (via PubMed), Embase (via Elsevier) and IEEE Xplore will be searched using English free text terms in title/abstract, Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) terms and Embase Subject Headings (Emtree fields). Additional studies will be identified by contacting authors of included studies and through reference lists of included studies. Grey literature searches will be conducted in Google Scholar. Risk of bias will be assessed by using Cochrane's RoB 2 for randomised trials and ROBINS-I for non-randomised trials. Transparent reporting of the included studies will be assessed using the CONSORT-AI extension statement. Two researchers will screen, assess and extract from the studies independently, with a third in case of conflicts that cannot be resolved by discussion.

Discussion: It is expected that there will be a substantial shortage of suitable studies that compare healthcare professionals with and without ADM systems concerning patient-relevant endpoints. This can be attributed to the prioritisation of technical quality criteria and, in some cases, clinical parameters over patient-relevant endpoints in the development of study designs. Furthermore, it is anticipated that a significant portion of the identified studies will exhibit relatively poor methodological quality and provide only limited generalisable results.

Systematic review registration: This study is registered within PROSPERO (CRD42023412156).

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Systematic Reviews
Systematic Reviews Medicine-Medicine (miscellaneous)
CiteScore
8.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
241
审稿时长
11 weeks
期刊介绍: Systematic Reviews encompasses all aspects of the design, conduct and reporting of systematic reviews. The journal publishes high quality systematic review products including systematic review protocols, systematic reviews related to a very broad definition of health, rapid reviews, updates of already completed systematic reviews, and methods research related to the science of systematic reviews, such as decision modelling. At this time Systematic Reviews does not accept reviews of in vitro studies. The journal also aims to ensure that the results of all well-conducted systematic reviews are published, regardless of their outcome.
期刊最新文献
The efficacy and safety of ketorolac for postoperative pain management in lumbar spine surgery: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Semi-automated title-abstract screening using natural language processing and machine learning. Stroke patient and stakeholder engagement (SPSE): concepts, definitions, models, implementation strategies, indicators, and frameworks-a systematic scoping review. The distribution of work-related musculoskeletal disorders among nurses in sub-Saharan Africa: a scoping review. Toward a whole-of-virtual school framework for promoting student physical activity: a scoping review protocol.
×
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