ReviewFrontiers in surgery2022
Decision support by machine learning systems for acute management of severely injured patients: A systematic review.
Review in Frontiers in surgery, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 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
11 citing papers in PubMed.
- Perceptions on artificial intelligence among anaesthesia and intensive care professionals: An international survey on attitudes, expectations and needs.Journal of clinical monitoring and computing · 2026Article
- Observational
- Article
- Real-time, artificial intelligence-guided intraoperative resuscitation and fluid management in trauma anesthesia.Current opinion in anaesthesiology · 2026Review
- Prehospital real-time AI for trauma mortality prediction: a multi-institutional and multi-national validation study.Nature communications · 2026Article
- PICO-based assessment and categorization of evidence for digital health interventions: an inductive framework development.Frontiers in digital health · 2026Review
- Development of web- and mobile-based shared decision-making tools in the neurological intensive care unit.Neurotherapeutics : the journal of the American Society for Experimental NeuroTherapeutics · 2025Review
- Traumatic Brain Injury in Patients under Anticoagulant Therapy: Review of Management in Emergency Department.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Review
- An Artificial Intelligence Model for Predicting Trauma Mortality Among Emergency Department Patients in South Korea: Retrospective Cohort Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2023Article
- Implications of rapid population growth on survey design and HIV estimates in the Rakai Community Cohort Study (RCCS), Uganda.BMJ open · 2023Article
- Digitalization in orthopaedics: a narrative review.Frontiers in surgery · 2023Review
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Treating severely injured patients requires numerous critical decisions within short intervals in a highly complex situation. The coordination of a trauma team in this setting has been shown to be associated with multiple procedural errors, even of experienced care teams. Machine learning (ML) is an approach that estimates outcomes based on past experiences and data patterns using a computer-generated algorithm. This systematic review aimed to summarize the existing literature on the value of ML for the initial management of severely injured patients. Methods: We conducted a systematic review of the literature with the goal of finding all articles describing the use of ML systems in the context of acute management of severely injured patients. MESH search of Pubmed/Medline and Web of Science was conducted. Studies including fewer than 10 patients were excluded. Studies were divided into the following main prediction groups: (1) injury pattern, (2) hemorrhage/need for transfusion, (3) emergency intervention, (4) ICU/length of hospital stay, and (5) mortality. Results: Thirty-six articles met the inclusion criteria; among these were two prospective and thirty-four retrospective case series. Publication dates ranged from 2000 to 2020 and included 32 different first authors. A total of 18,586,929 patients were included in the prediction models. Mortality was the most represented main prediction group ( Conclusions: While the majority of articles show a generally positive result with high accuracy and precision, there are several requirements that need to be met to make the implementation of such models in daily clinical work possible. Furthermore, experience in dealing with on-site implementation and more clinical trials are necessary before the implementation of ML techniques in clinical care can become a reality.
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.