Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36878659›Full record

SynthesisBMJ open2023

Artificial intelligence as a diagnostic aid in cross-sectional radiological imaging of surgical pathology in the abdominopelvic cavity: a systematic review.

George E Fowler, Natalie S Blencowe, Conor Hardacre, Mark P Callaway, Neil J Smart, Rhiannon Macefield

Open access · goldAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMJ open, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
0.4field-weighted citation impact, top 31% of its field
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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 10 citations in OpenAlex.

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

6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

George E FowlerNIHR Bristol Biomedical Research Centre, Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School. University of Bristol, Bristol, UK george.fowler@bristol.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0002-4133-802X
Natalie S BlencoweNIHR Bristol Biomedical Research Centre, Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School. University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-6111-2175
Conor HardacreBristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
Mark P CallawayDepartment of Clinical Radiology, University Hospital Bristol and Weston NHS Foundation Trust, Bristol, UK.
Neil J SmartExeter Surgical Health Services Research Unit (HeSRU), Royal Devon and Exeter NHS Foundation Trust, Exeter, UK.
Rhiannon MacefieldNIHR Bristol Biomedical Research Centre, Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School. University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-6606-5427
University of Bristol · GBRoyal Devon & Exeter NHS Foundation Trust · GBUniversity Hospitals Bristol NHS Foundation Trust · GB

Funding

Medical Research Council MR/S001751/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesThere is emerging use of artificial intelligence (AI) models to aid diagnostic imaging. This review examined and critically appraised the application of AI models to identify surgical pathology from radiological images of the abdominopelvic cavity, to identify current limitations and inform future research.

designSystematic review. DATA SOURCES: Systematic database searches (Medline, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials) were performed. Date limitations (January 2012 to July 2021) were applied. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Primary research studies were considered for eligibility using the PIRT (participants, index test(s), reference standard and target condition) framework. Only publications in the English language were eligible for inclusion in the review. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Study characteristics, descriptions of AI models and outcomes assessing diagnostic performance were extracted by independent reviewers. A narrative synthesis was performed in accordance with the Synthesis Without Meta-analysis guidelines. Risk of bias was assessed (Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 (QUADAS-2)).

resultsFifteen retrospective studies were included. Studies were diverse in surgical specialty, the intention of the AI applications and the models used. AI training and test sets comprised a median of 130 (range: 5-2440) and 37 (range: 10-1045) patients, respectively. Diagnostic performance of models varied (range: 70%-95% sensitivity, 53%-98% specificity). Only four studies compared the AI model with human performance. Reporting of studies was unstandardised and often lacking in detail. Most studies (n=14) were judged as having overall high risk of bias with concerns regarding applicability.

conclusionsAI application in this field is diverse. Adherence to reporting guidelines is warranted. With finite healthcare resources, future endeavours may benefit from targeting areas where radiological expertise is in high demand to provide greater efficiency in clinical care. Translation to clinical practice and adoption of a multidisciplinary approach should be of high priority. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42021237249.

Indexed as

Pathology, SurgicalArtificial IntelligenceCross-Sectional StudiesHumansRadiographyRetrospective StudiesAdult surgeryDiagnostic radiologySURGERY

Identifiers

PMID36878659
PMCPMC9990659
OpenAlexW4323348186

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.