Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35363141›Full record

ArticleJMIR research protocols2022

Stakeholder Perspectives on Clinical Decision Support Tools to Inform Clinical Artificial Intelligence Implementation: Protocol for a Framework Synthesis for Qualitative Evidence.

Mohaimen Al-Zubaidy, H D Jeffry Hogg, Gregory Maniatopoulos, James Talks, Marion Dawn Teare, Pearse A Keane, Fiona R Beyer

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR research protocols, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
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

7 authors.

Mohaimen Al-ZubaidyFaculty of Medical Sciences, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3429-1400
H D Jeffry HoggFaculty of Medical Sciences, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8044-7790
Gregory ManiatopoulosFaculty of Medical Sciences, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9602-3885
James TalksThe Royal Victoria Infirmary, Newcastle Upon Tyne, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6126-6476
Marion Dawn TeareFaculty of Medical Sciences, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3994-0051
Pearse A KeaneMoorfields Eye Hospital National Health Service Foundation Trust, London, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9239-745X
Fiona R BeyerFaculty of Medical Sciences, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6396-3467

Funding

Medical Research Council MC_PC_19005Medical Research Council MR/T019050/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundQuantitative systematic reviews have identified clinical artificial intelligence (AI)-enabled tools with adequate performance for real-world implementation. To our knowledge, no published report or protocol synthesizes the full breadth of stakeholder perspectives. The absence of such a rigorous foundation perpetuates the "AI chasm," which continues to delay patient benefit.

objectiveThe aim of this research is to synthesize stakeholder perspectives of computerized clinical decision support tools in any health care setting. Synthesized findings will inform future research and the implementation of AI into health care services.

methodsThe search strategy will use MEDLINE (Ovid), Scopus, CINAHL (EBSCO), ACM Digital Library, and Science Citation Index (Web of Science). Following deduplication, title, abstract, and full text screening will be performed by 2 independent reviewers with a third topic expert arbitrating. The quality of included studies will be appraised to support interpretation. Best-fit framework synthesis will be performed, with line-by-line coding completed by 2 independent reviewers. Where appropriate, these findings will be assigned to 1 of 22 a priori themes defined by the Nonadoption, Abandonment, Scale-up, Spread, and Sustainability framework. New domains will be inductively generated for outlying findings. The placement of findings within themes will be reviewed iteratively by a study advisory group including patient and lay representatives.

resultsStudy registration was obtained from PROSPERO (CRD42021256005) in May 2021. Final searches were executed in April, and screening is ongoing at the time of writing. Full text data analysis is due to be completed in October 2021. We anticipate that the study will be submitted for open-access publication in late 2021.

conclusionsThis paper describes the protocol for a qualitative evidence synthesis aiming to define barriers and facilitators to the implementation of computerized clinical decision support tools from all relevant stakeholders. The results of this study are intended to expedite the delivery of patient benefit from AI-enabled clinical tools.

trial registrationPROSPERO CRD42021256005; https://tinyurl.com/r4x3thvp. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/33145.

Indexed as

artificial intelligenceclinical decisionclinical decision support toolsdecision supportdigital healthimplementationqualitative evidence synthesisstakeholders

Identifiers

PMID35363141
PMCPMC9015736

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.