Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37587993›Full record

ReviewBJA open2023

Use of artificial intelligence in paediatric anaesthesia: a systematic review.

Ryan Antel, Ella Sahlas, Genevieve Gore, Pablo Ingelmo

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in BJA open, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Observational
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Reshaping Anesthesia with Artificial Intelligence: From Concept to Reality.Anesthesia and critical care (Houston, Tex.) · 2025
    Article
  9. Article
  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

4 authors.

Ryan AntelFaculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.
Ella SahlasFaculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.
Genevieve GoreSchulich Library of Physical Sciences, Life Sciences, and Engineering, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.
Pablo IngelmoDepartment of Anesthesia, Montreal Children's Hospital, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objectives: Although the development of artificial intelligence (AI) technologies in medicine has been significant, their application to paediatric anaesthesia is not well characterised. As the paediatric operating room is a data-rich environment that requires critical clinical decision-making, this systematic review aims to characterise the current use of AI in paediatric anaesthesia and to identify barriers to the successful integration of such technologies. Methods: This review was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42022304610), the international registry for systematic reviews. The search strategy was prepared by a librarian and run in five electronic databases (Embase, Medline, Central, Scopus, and Web of Science). Collected articles were screened by two reviewers. Included studies described the use of AI for paediatric anaesthesia (<18 yr old) within the perioperative setting. Results: From 3313 records identified in the initial search, 40 were included in this review. Identified applications of AI were described for patient risk factor prediction (24 studies; 60%), anaesthetic depth estimation (2; 5%), anaesthetic medication/technique decision guidance (2; 5%), intubation assistance (1; 2.5%), airway device selection (3; 7.5%), physiological variable monitoring (6; 15%), and operating room scheduling (2; 5%). Multiple domains of AI were discussed including machine learning, computer vision, fuzzy logic, and natural language processing. Conclusion: There is an emerging literature regarding applications of AI for paediatric anaesthesia, and their clinical integration holds potential for ultimately improving patient outcomes. However, multiple barriers to their clinical integration remain including a lack of high-quality input data, lack of external validation/evaluation, and unclear generalisability to diverse settings. Systematic review protocol: CRD42022304610 (PROSPERO).

Indexed as

artificial intelligencecritical caremachine learningpaediatric anaesthesiaperioperative medicine

Identifiers

PMID37587993
PMCPMC10430814

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.