Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39357985›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2024

Evaluating artificial intelligence-driven stress echocardiography analysis system (EASE study): A mixed method study.

Mahdi Mahdavi, Nicki Thomas, Chris Flood, Adele Stewart-Lord, Lesley Baillie, Enrico Grisan, Patrick Callaghan, Rosica Panayotova, Sandeep S Hothi, Virgil Griffith and 2 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Artificial Intelligence in Coronary Artery Interventions: Preprocedural Planning and Procedural Assistance.Journal of the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography & Interventions · 2025
    Review
  4. Review
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

12 authors.

Mahdi MahdaviSchool of Applied Sciences, London South Bank University, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-7383-3455
Nicki ThomasInstitute of Health and Social Care, London South Bank University, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-8311-7356
Chris FloodSchool of Health and Social Care, London South Bank University, London, UK.
Adele Stewart-LordSchool of Allied and Community Health, London South Bank University, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-1594-5616
Lesley BaillieDepartment of Adult and Midwifery Studies, London South Bank University, London, UK.
Enrico GrisanLondon South Bank University, London, UK.
Patrick CallaghanLSBU Doctoral College, London South Bank University, London, UK.
Rosica PanayotovaStepping Hill Hospital, Stockport, UK.
Sandeep S HothiDepartment of Cardiology, Royal Wolverhampton NHS Trust, Wolverhampton, UK.
Virgil GriffithSchool of Applied Sciences, London South Bank University, London, UK.
Sharanya JayadevSchool of Applied Sciences, London South Bank University, London, UK.
Daniel FringsLondon South Bank University, London, UK Dan.frings@lsbu.ac.uk.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionThe use and value of artificial intelligence (AI)-driven tools and techniques are under investigation in detecting coronary artery disease (CAD). EchoGo Pro is a patented AI-driven stress echocardiography analysis system produced by Ultromics Ltd. (henceforth Ultromics) to support clinicians in detecting cardiac ischaemia and potential CAD. This manuscript presents the research protocol for a field study to independently evaluate the accuracy, acceptability, implementation barriers, users' experience and willingness to pay, cost-effectiveness and value of EchoGo Pro. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The 'Evaluating AI-driven stress echocardiography analysis system' (EASE) study is a mixed-method evaluation, which will be conducted in five work packages (WPs). In WP1, we will examine the diagnostic accuracy by comparing test reports generated by EchoGo Pro and three manual raters. In WP2, we will focus on interviewing clinicians, innovation/transformation staff, and patients within the National Health Service (NHS), and staff within Ultromics, to assess the acceptability of this technology. In this WP, we will determine convergence and divergence between EchoGo Pro recommendations and cardiologists' interpretations and will assess what profile of cases is linked with convergence and divergence between EchoGo Pro recommendations and cardiologists' interpretations and how these link to outcomes. In WP4, we will conduct a quantitative cross-sectional survey of trust in AI tools applied to cardiac care settings among clinicians, healthcare commissioners and the general public. Lastly, in WP5, we will estimate the cost of deploying the EchoGo Pro technology, cost-effectiveness and willingness to pay cardiologists, healthcare commissioners and the general public. The results of this evaluation will support evidence-informed decision-making around the widespread adoption of EchoGo Pro and similar technologies in the NHS and other health systems. ETHICS APPROVAL AND DISSEMINATION: This research has been approved by the NHS Health Research Authority (IRAS No: 315284) and the London South Bank University Ethics Panel (ETH2223-0164). Alongside journal publications, we will disseminate study methods and findings in conferences, seminars and social media. We will produce additional outputs in appropriate forms, for example, research summaries and policy briefs, for diverse audiences in NHS.

Indexed as

Artificial IntelligenceCoronary Artery DiseaseEchocardiography, StressCost-Benefit AnalysisHumansResearch Designcoronary heart diseasehealth economicsischaemic heart diseasepatient-centered careprotocols & guidelinessurveys and questionnaires

Identifiers

PMID39357985
PMCPMC11448110

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.