Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36307479›Full record

ArticleNPJ digital medicine2022

Artificial intelligence for strengthening healthcare systems in low- and middle-income countries: a systematic scoping review.

Tadeusz Ciecierski-Holmes, Ritvij Singh, Miriam Axt, Stephan Brenner, Sandra Barteit

Abstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in NPJ digital medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 154 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
154citing papers in PubMed, 6 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

154 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. A conceptual framework for measuring AI health equity.International journal for equity in health · 2026
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Emerging applications of artificial intelligence for obstetric ultrasound: A scoping review.International journal of gynaecology and obstetrics: the official organ of the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics · 2026
    Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Article

94 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

5 authors.

Tadeusz Ciecierski-HolmesHeidelberg Institute of Global Health (HIGH), Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital, Heidelberg University, Heidelberg, Germany. tsc38@cam.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5642-218X
Ritvij SinghImperial College London, Faculty of Medicine, Sir Alexander Fleming Building, London, SW7 2DD, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4412-3163
Miriam AxtHeidelberg Institute of Global Health (HIGH), Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital, Heidelberg University, Heidelberg, Germany.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3730-5177
Stephan BrennerHeidelberg Institute of Global Health (HIGH), Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital, Heidelberg University, Heidelberg, Germany.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5397-7008
Sandra BarteitHeidelberg Institute of Global Health (HIGH), Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital, Heidelberg University, Heidelberg, Germany.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3806-6027

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), AI has been promoted as a potential means of strengthening healthcare systems by a growing number of publications. We aimed to evaluate the scope and nature of AI technologies in the specific context of LMICs. In this systematic scoping review, we used a broad variety of AI and healthcare search terms. Our literature search included records published between 1st January 2009 and 30th September 2021 from the Scopus, EMBASE, MEDLINE, Global Health and APA PsycInfo databases, and grey literature from a Google Scholar search. We included studies that reported a quantitative and/or qualitative evaluation of a real-world application of AI in an LMIC health context. A total of 10 references evaluating the application of AI in an LMIC were included. Applications varied widely, including: clinical decision support systems, treatment planning and triage assistants and health chatbots. Only half of the papers reported which algorithms and datasets were used in order to train the AI. A number of challenges of using AI tools were reported, including issues with reliability, mixed impacts on workflows, poor user friendliness and lack of adeptness with local contexts. Many barriers exists that prevent the successful development and adoption of well-performing, context-specific AI tools, such as limited data availability, trust and evidence of cost-effectiveness in LMICs. Additional evaluations of the use of AI in healthcare in LMICs are needed in order to identify their effectiveness and reliability in real-world settings and to generate understanding for best practices for future implementations.

Identifiers

PMID36307479
PMCPMC9614192

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.