Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35928743›Full record

ReviewAnnals of translational medicine2022

Artificial intelligence and anesthesia: a narrative review.

Valentina Bellini, Emanuele Rafano Carnà, Michele Russo, Fabiola Di Vincenzo, Matteo Berghenti, Marco Baciarello, Elena Bignami

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Annals of translational medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 27 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
27citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Reshaping Anesthesia with Artificial Intelligence: From Concept to Reality.Anesthesia and critical care (Houston, Tex.) · 2025
    Article
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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.

Valentina BelliniAnesthesiology, Critical Care and Pain Medicine Division, Department of Medicine and Surgery, University of Parma, Parma, Italy.
Emanuele Rafano CarnàAnesthesiology, Critical Care and Pain Medicine Division, Department of Medicine and Surgery, University of Parma, Parma, Italy.
Michele RussoAnesthesiology, Critical Care and Pain Medicine Division, Department of Medicine and Surgery, University of Parma, Parma, Italy.
Fabiola Di VincenzoClinical Engineering Service ("SIC")-AOU Parma, Parma, Italy.
Matteo BerghentiClinical Engineering Service ("SIC")-AOU Parma, Parma, Italy.
Marco BaciarelloAnesthesiology, Critical Care and Pain Medicine Division, Department of Medicine and Surgery, University of Parma, Parma, Italy.
Elena BignamiAnesthesiology, Critical Care and Pain Medicine Division, Department of Medicine and Surgery, University of Parma, Parma, Italy.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background and Objective: The aim of this narrative review is to analyze whether or not artificial intelligence (AI) and its subsets are implemented in current clinical anesthetic practice, and to describe the current state of the research in the field. AI is a general term which refers to all the techniques that enable computers to mimic human intelligence. AI is based on algorithms that gives machines the ability to reason and perform functions such as problem-solving, object and word recognition, inference of world states, and decision-making. It includes machine learning (ML) and deep learning (DL). Methods: We performed a narrative review of the literature on Scopus, PubMed and Cochrane databases. The research string comprised various combinations of "artificial intelligence", "machine learning", "anesthesia", "anesthesiology". The databases were searched independently by two authors. A third reviewer would mediate any disagreement the results of the two screeners. Key Content and Findings: The application of AI has shown excellent results in both anesthesia and in operating room (OR) management. In each phase of the perioperative process, pre-, intra- and postoperative ones, it is able to perform different and specific tasks, using various techniques. Conclusions: Thanks to the use of these new technologies, even anesthesia, as it is happening for other disciplines, is going through a real revolution, called Anesthesia 4.0. However, AI is not free from limitations and open issues. Unfortunately, the models created, provided they have excellent performance, have not yet entered daily practice. Clinical impact analyzes and external validations are needed before this happens. Therefore, qualitative research will be needed to better understand the ethical, cultural, and societal implications of integrating AI into clinical workflows.

Indexed as

anesthesiaArtificial intelligence (AI)deep learning (DL)machine learning (ML)perioperative medicine

Identifiers

PMID35928743
PMCPMC9347047

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.