Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37491228›Full record

ArticleBMC health services research2023

Needs and expectations for artificial intelligence in emergency medicine according to Canadian physicians.

Kyle W Eastwood, Ronald May, Pantelis Andreou, Samina Abidi, Syed Sibte Raza Abidi, Osama M Loubani

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC health services research, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed
1.1field-weighted citation impact, top 17% 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

10 citing papers in PubMed, 28 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. 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 1 institution in 1 country.

Kyle W EastwoodDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Dalhousie University, 1796 Summer Street, Halifax Infirmary, 4Th Floor Emergency Department Administration Office, Halifax, NS, B3H 2Y9, Canada. ky675200@dal.ca.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2601-9960
Ronald MayDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Dalhousie University, 1796 Summer Street, Halifax Infirmary, 4Th Floor Emergency Department Administration Office, Halifax, NS, B3H 2Y9, Canada.
Pantelis AndreouDepartment of Community Health and Epidemiology, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Canada.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5554-1432
Samina AbidiDepartment of Community Health and Epidemiology, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Canada.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7805-6122
Syed Sibte Raza AbidiNICHE Research Group, Faculty of Computer Science, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Canada.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3075-7736
Osama M LoubaniDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Dalhousie University, 1796 Summer Street, Halifax Infirmary, 4Th Floor Emergency Department Administration Office, Halifax, NS, B3H 2Y9, Canada.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7996-2688
Dalhousie University · CA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundArtificial Intelligence (AI) is recognized by emergency physicians (EPs) as an important technology that will affect clinical practice. Several AI-tools have already been developed to aid care delivery in emergency medicine (EM). However, many EM tools appear to have been developed without a cross-disciplinary needs assessment, making it difficult to understand their broader importance to general-practice. Clinician surveys about AI tools have been conducted within other medical specialties to help guide future design. This study aims to understand the needs of Canadian EPs for the apt use of AI-based tools.

methodsA national cross-sectional, two-stage, mixed-method electronic survey of Canadian EPs was conducted from January-May 2022. The survey includes demographic and physician practice-pattern data, clinicians' current use and perceptions of AI, and individual rankings of which EM work-activities most benefit from AI.

resultsThe primary outcome is a ranked list of high-priority AI-tools for EM that physicians want translated into general use within the next 10 years. When ranking specific AI examples, 'automated charting/report generation', 'clinical prediction rules' and 'monitoring vitals with early-warning detection' were the top items. When ranking by physician work-activities, 'AI-tools for documentation', 'AI-tools for computer use' and 'AI-tools for triaging patients' were the top items. For secondary outcomes, EPs indicated AI was 'likely' (43.1%) or 'extremely likely' (43.7%) to be able to complete the task of 'documentation' and indicated either 'a-great-deal' (32.8%) or 'quite-a-bit' (39.7%) of potential for AI in EM. Further, EPs were either 'strongly' (48.5%) or 'somewhat' (39.8%) interested in AI for EM.

conclusionsPhysician input on the design of AI is essential to ensure the uptake of this technology. Translation of AI-tools to facilitate documentation is considered a high-priority, and respondents had high confidence that AI could facilitate this task. This study will guide future directions regarding the use of AI for EM and help direct efforts to address prevailing technology-translation barriers such as access to high-quality application-specific data and developing reporting guidelines for specific AI-applications. With a prioritized list of high-need AI applications, decision-makers can develop focused strategies to address these larger obstacles.

Indexed as

Emergency MedicinePhysiciansArtificial IntelligenceCanadaCross-Sectional StudiesHumansMotivationArtificial IntelligenceEmergency medicineNeeds-analysisSurveyUser-centered design

Identifiers

PMID37491228
PMCPMC10369807
OpenAlexW4385237819

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.