Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34842528›Full record

ArticleJMIR human factors2021

Clinician Preimplementation Perspectives of a Decision-Support Tool for the Prediction of Cardiac Arrhythmia Based on Machine Learning: Near-Live Feasibility and Qualitative Study.

Stina Matthiesen, Søren Zöga Diederichsen, Mikkel Klitzing Hartmann Hansen, Christina Villumsen, Mats Christian Højbjerg Lassen, Peter Karl Jacobsen, Niels Risum, Bo Gregers Winkel, Berit T Philbert, Jesper Hastrup Svendsen and 1 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR human factors, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
3.9field-weighted citation impact, top 5% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

22 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 40 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Public perspectives on the use of different data types for prediction in healthcare.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2024
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

11 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Stina Matthiesen *Department of Computer Science, Faculty of Science, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7143-7467
Søren Zöga DiederichsenVital Beats, Copenhagen, Denmark.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9687-0857
Mikkel Klitzing Hartmann HansenVital Beats, Copenhagen, Denmark.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5609-2723
Christina VillumsenVital Beats, Copenhagen, Denmark.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7425-4714
Mats Christian Højbjerg LassenVital Beats, Copenhagen, Denmark.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2255-582X
Peter Karl JacobsenDepartment of Cardiology, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen University Hospital, Copenhagen, Denmark.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1520-8774
Niels RisumDepartment of Cardiology, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen University Hospital, Copenhagen, Denmark.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0357-9164
Bo Gregers WinkelDepartment of Cardiology, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen University Hospital, Copenhagen, Denmark.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3063-4712
Berit T PhilbertDepartment of Cardiology, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen University Hospital, Copenhagen, Denmark.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9479-7601
Jesper Hastrup SvendsenDepartment of Cardiology, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen University Hospital, Copenhagen, Denmark.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8466-8515
Tariq Osman AndersenDepartment of Computer Science, Faculty of Science, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9342-5520
Copenhagen University Hospital · DKUniversity of Copenhagen · DK

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundArtificial intelligence (AI), such as machine learning (ML), shows great promise for improving clinical decision-making in cardiac diseases by outperforming statistical-based models. However, few AI-based tools have been implemented in cardiology clinics because of the sociotechnical challenges during transitioning from algorithm development to real-world implementation.

objectiveThis study explored how an ML-based tool for predicting ventricular tachycardia and ventricular fibrillation (VT/VF) could support clinical decision-making in the remote monitoring of patients with an implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD).

methodsSeven experienced electrophysiologists participated in a near-live feasibility and qualitative study, which included walkthroughs of 5 blinded retrospective patient cases, use of the prediction tool, and questionnaires and interview questions. All sessions were video recorded, and sessions evaluating the prediction tool were transcribed verbatim. Data were analyzed through an inductive qualitative approach based on grounded theory.

resultsThe prediction tool was found to have potential for supporting decision-making in ICD remote monitoring by providing reassurance, increasing confidence, acting as a second opinion, reducing information search time, and enabling delegation of decisions to nurses and technicians. However, the prediction tool did not lead to changes in clinical action and was found less useful in cases where the quality of data was poor or when VT/VF predictions were found to be irrelevant for evaluating the patient.

conclusionsWhen transitioning from AI development to testing its feasibility for clinical implementation, we need to consider the following: expectations must be aligned with the intended use of AI; trust in the prediction tool is likely to emerge from real-world use; and AI accuracy is relational and dependent on available information and local workflows. Addressing the sociotechnical gap between the development and implementation of clinical decision-support tools based on ML in cardiac care is essential for succeeding with adoption. It is suggested to include clinical end-users, clinical contexts, and workflows throughout the overall iterative approach to design, development, and implementation.

Indexed as

artificial intelligencecardiac arrhythmiaclinical decision support systemsimplantable cardioverter defibrillatormachine learningpreimplementationqualitative studyremote follow-upshort-term predictionsociotechnical

Identifiers

PMID34842528
PMCPMC8665383
OpenAlexW3204979371

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.