Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35580973›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2022

Assessing the potentiality of algorithms and artificial intelligence adoption to disrupt patient primary care with a safer and faster medication management: a systematic review protocol.

Antonio Oliva, Gerardo Altamura, Mario Cesare Nurchis, Massimo Zedda, Giorgio Sessa, Francesca Cazzato, Giovanni Aulino, Martina Sapienza, Maria Teresa Riccardi, Gabriele Della Morte and 3 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. 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

13 authors.

Antonio Oliva *Department of Health Surveillance and Bioethics, Section of Legal Medicine, Fondazione Policlinico A. Gemelli IRCCS, Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Rome, Italy.
Gerardo Altamura *Department of Life Sciences and Public Health, Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Rome, Italy.
Mario Cesare NurchisDepartment of Woman and Child Health and Public Health, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario Agostino Gemelli IRCCS, Roma, Italy nurchismario@gmail.com.ORCID 0000-0002-9345-4292
Massimo ZeddaDepartment of Health Surveillance and Bioethics, Section of Legal Medicine, Fondazione Policlinico A. Gemelli IRCCS, Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Rome, Italy.
Giorgio SessaDepartment of Life Sciences and Public Health, Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Rome, Italy.
Francesca CazzatoDepartment of Health Surveillance and Bioethics, Section of Legal Medicine, Fondazione Policlinico A. Gemelli IRCCS, Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Rome, Italy.
Giovanni AulinoDepartment of Health Surveillance and Bioethics, Section of Legal Medicine, Fondazione Policlinico A. Gemelli IRCCS, Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Rome, Italy.
Martina SapienzaDepartment of Life Sciences and Public Health, Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Rome, Italy.
Maria Teresa RiccardiDepartment of Life Sciences and Public Health, Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Rome, Italy.
Gabriele Della MorteFaculty of Law, Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Milan, Italy.
Matteo CaputoDepartment of Juridical Science, Section of Criminal Law, Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Milan, Italy.
Simone GrassiDepartment of Health Surveillance and Bioethics, Section of Legal Medicine, Fondazione Policlinico A. Gemelli IRCCS, Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Rome, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-2420-6658
Gianfranco DamianiDepartment of Life Sciences and Public Health, Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Rome, Italy.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionIn primary care, almost 75% of outpatient visits by family doctors and general practitioners involve continuation or initiation of drug therapy. Due to the enormous amount of drugs used by outpatients in unmonitored situations, the potential risk of adverse events due to an error in the use or prescription of drugs is much higher than in a hospital setting. Artificial intelligence (AI) application can help healthcare professionals to take charge of patient safety by improving error detection, patient stratification and drug management. The aim is to investigate the impact of AI algorithms on drug management in primary care settings and to compare AI or algorithms with standard clinical practice to define the medication fields where a technological support could lead to better results. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A systematic review and meta-analysis of literature will be conducted querying PubMed, Cochrane and ISI Web of Science from the inception to December 2021. The primary outcome will be the reduction of medication errors obtained by AI application. The search strategy and the study selection will be conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses and the population, intervention, comparator and outcome framework. Quality of included studies will be appraised adopting the quality assessment tool for observational cohort and cross-sectional studies for non-randomised controlled trials as well as the quality assessment of controlled intervention studies of National Institute of Health for randomised controlled trials. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Formal ethical approval is not required since no human beings are involved. The results will be disseminated widely through peer-reviewed publications.

Indexed as

Artificial IntelligencePatient CareCross-Sectional StudiesHealth PersonnelHumansMeta-Analysis as TopicPrimary Health CareSystematic Reviews as TopicPRIMARY CAREPUBLIC HEALTHRisk management

Identifiers

PMID35580973
PMCPMC9114863

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.