ArticlePLOS digital health2024
Frameworks for procurement, integration, monitoring, and evaluation of artificial intelligence tools in clinical settings: A systematic review.
Article in PLOS digital health, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
15 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- AI for IMPACTS Framework for Evaluating the Long-Term Real-World Impacts of AI-Powered Clinician Tools: Systematic Review and Narrative Synthesis.Journal of medical Internet research · 2025Pooled it
- Artificial Intelligence Readiness in Emergency Medicine: Expert Consensus Opinion for Preparing the Workforce.Journal of the American College of Emergency Physicians open · 2026Article
- Artificial Intelligence for Improving the Management of People With Epilepsy in Low-and-Middle Income Countries.European journal of neurology · 2026Review
- Clinical AI Beyond Development: A Scoping Review of Deployment-Related Robustness, Algorithmovigilance, and Lifecycle Oversight.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Beyond Model Development in Healthcare AI: Post-Development Robustness, Post-Deployment Monitoring, and Lifecycle Governance-A Scoping Review of Reviews.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Advancing healthcare AI governance through a comprehensive maturity model based on systematic review.NPJ digital medicine · 2026Article
- A nursing perspective on human-AI collaboration in personalized breast cancer care pathways.Frontiers in oncology · 2026Article
- Artificial intelligence in the diagnosis of thyroid diseases: applications and challenges.Frontiers in radiology · 2026Review
- AI without representation is just inequity at scale: on the exportation of unrepresentative artificial intelligence models to the Global South.Frontiers in artificial intelligence · 2026Article
- Evolution of an Artificial Intelligence-Powered Application for Mammography.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Examining human-AI interaction in real-world healthcare beyond the laboratory.NPJ digital medicine · 2025Review
- Population health management fit lifecycles in analytics.Frontiers in artificial intelligence · 2025Article
- Natural Language Processing in Clinical Research Recruitment: A Scoping Review Enriched with Stakeholder Insights.Ethics & human researchArticle
- Article
- Emergency Primary Care Personnel's Perspectives Toward AI-Based Decision Support Tools: A Qualitative Study in Norway.Journal of primary care & community healthArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
15 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Research on the applications of artificial intelligence (AI) tools in medicine has increased exponentially over the last few years but its implementation in clinical practice has not seen a commensurate increase with a lack of consensus on implementing and maintaining such tools. This systematic review aims to summarize frameworks focusing on procuring, implementing, monitoring, and evaluating AI tools in clinical practice. A comprehensive literature search, following PRSIMA guidelines was performed on MEDLINE, Wiley Cochrane, Scopus, and EBSCO databases, to identify and include articles recommending practices, frameworks or guidelines for AI procurement, integration, monitoring, and evaluation. From the included articles, data regarding study aim, use of a framework, rationale of the framework, details regarding AI implementation involving procurement, integration, monitoring, and evaluation were extracted. The extracted details were then mapped on to the Donabedian Plan, Do, Study, Act cycle domains. The search yielded 17,537 unique articles, out of which 47 were evaluated for inclusion based on their full texts and 25 articles were included in the review. Common themes extracted included transparency, feasibility of operation within existing workflows, integrating into existing workflows, validation of the tool using predefined performance indicators and improving the algorithm and/or adjusting the tool to improve performance. Among the four domains (Plan, Do, Study, Act) the most common domain was Plan (84%, n = 21), followed by Study (60%, n = 15), Do (52%, n = 13), & Act (24%, n = 6). Among 172 authors, only 1 (0.6%) was from a low-income country (LIC) and 2 (1.2%) were from lower-middle-income countries (LMICs). Healthcare professionals cite the implementation of AI tools within clinical settings as challenging owing to low levels of evidence focusing on integration in the Do and Act domains. The current healthcare AI landscape calls for increased data sharing and knowledge translation to facilitate common goals and reap maximum clinical benefit.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.