ReviewAmerican journal of surgery2020
Opportunities for machine learning to improve surgical ward safety.
Review in American journal of surgery, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Precision perioperative AI: from signals, images, and records to applications in anesthesia-a narrative mini-review proposing an operational framework.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Review
- PREDICTING UNPLANNED TRAUMA INTENSIVE CARE UNIT ADMISSIONS FOR INITIAL NONOPERATIVE, NON-ICU PATIENTS.Shock (Augusta, Ga.) · 2025Article
- Physical Activity in Cancer Rehabilitation and Technology Acceptance: Results From the "Oncology in Motion" Project.Translational medicine @ UniSa · 2024Article
- Article
- Optimizing predictive strategies for acute kidney injury after major vascular surgery.Surgery · 2021Article
- Intraoperative hypotension and complications after vascular surgery: A scoping review.Surgery · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundDelayed recognition of decompensation and failure-to-rescue on surgical wards are major sources of preventable harm. This review assimilates and critically evaluates available evidence and identifies opportunities to improve surgical ward safety. DATA SOURCES: Fifty-eight articles from Cochrane Library, EMBASE, and PubMed databases were included.
conclusionsOnly 15-20% of patients suffering ward arrest survive. In most cases, subtle signs of instability often occur prior to critical illness and arrest, and underlying pathology is reversible. Coarse risk assessments lead to under-triage of high-risk patients to wards, where surveillance for complications depends on time-consuming manual review of health records, infrequent patient assessments, prediction models that lack accuracy and autonomy, and biased, error-prone decision-making. Streaming electronic heath record data, wearable continuous monitors, and recent advances in deep learning and reinforcement learning can promote efficient and accurate risk assessments, earlier recognition of instability, and better decisions regarding diagnosis and treatment of reversible underlying pathology.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.