Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38809946›Full record

ArticlePLOS digital health2024

Frameworks for procurement, integration, monitoring, and evaluation of artificial intelligence tools in clinical settings: A systematic review.

Sarim Dawar Khan, Zahra Hoodbhoy, Mohummad Hassan Raza Raja, Jee Young Kim, Henry David Jeffry Hogg, Afshan Anwar Ali Manji, Freya Gulamali, Alifia Hasan, Asim Shaikh, Salma Tajuddin and 5 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Population health management fit lifecycles in analytics.Frontiers in artificial intelligence · 2025
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. 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

15 authors.

Sarim Dawar KhanCITRIC Health Data Science Centre, Department of Medicine, Aga Khan University, Karachi, Pakistan.
Zahra HoodbhoyCITRIC Health Data Science Centre, Department of Medicine, Aga Khan University, Karachi, Pakistan.
Mohummad Hassan Raza RajaCITRIC Health Data Science Centre, Department of Medicine, Aga Khan University, Karachi, Pakistan.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5556-8232
Jee Young KimDuke Institute for Health Innovation, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, North Carolina, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4850-9757
Henry David Jeffry HoggPopulation Health Science Institute, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, United Kingdom.
Afshan Anwar Ali ManjiCITRIC Health Data Science Centre, Department of Medicine, Aga Khan University, Karachi, Pakistan.
Freya GulamaliDuke Institute for Health Innovation, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, North Carolina, United States.
Alifia HasanDuke Institute for Health Innovation, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, North Carolina, United States.
Asim ShaikhCITRIC Health Data Science Centre, Department of Medicine, Aga Khan University, Karachi, Pakistan.
Salma TajuddinCITRIC Health Data Science Centre, Department of Medicine, Aga Khan University, Karachi, Pakistan.
Nida Saddaf KhanCITRIC Health Data Science Centre, Department of Medicine, Aga Khan University, Karachi, Pakistan.
Manesh R PatelDuke Clinical Research Institute, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, North Carolina, United States.
Suresh BaluDuke Institute for Health Innovation, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, North Carolina, United States.
Zainab SamadCITRIC Health Data Science Centre, Department of Medicine, Aga Khan University, Karachi, Pakistan.
Mark P SendakDuke Institute for Health Innovation, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, North Carolina, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5828-4497

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

PMID38809946
PMCPMC11135672

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.