Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36299574›Full record

ReviewFrontiers in surgery2022

Decision support by machine learning systems for acute management of severely injured patients: A systematic review.

David Baur, Tobias Gehlen, Julian Scherer, David Alexander Back, Serafeim Tsitsilonis, Koroush Kabir, Georg Osterhoff

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed
–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

11 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Observational
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. 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 · 2025
    Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. 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.

David BaurDepartment for Orthopedics and Traumatology, University Hospital Leipzig, Leipzig, Germany.
Tobias GehlenCenter for Musculoskeletal Surgery, Charité University Medicine Berlin, Berlin, Germany.
Julian SchererClinic for Traumatology, University Hospital Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.
David Alexander BackCenter for Musculoskeletal Surgery, Charité University Medicine Berlin, Berlin, Germany.
Serafeim TsitsilonisCenter for Musculoskeletal Surgery, Charité University Medicine Berlin, Berlin, Germany.
Koroush KabirDepartment of Orthopaedics and Trauma Surgery, University Hospital Bonn, Bonn, Germany.
Georg OsterhoffDepartment for Orthopedics, Traumatology and Plastic Surgery, University Hospital Leipzig, Leipzig, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

artificial intelligencedecision supportdeep learningmachine learningneural networkspolytraumapredictiontrauma

Identifiers

PMID36299574
PMCPMC9589228

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.