Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40623684›Full record

ArticleJMIR medical informatics2025

Improving AI-Based Clinical Decision Support Systems and Their Integration Into Care From the Perspective of Experts: Interview Study Among Different Stakeholders.

Godwin Denk Giebel, Pascal Raszke, Hartmuth Nowak, Lars Palmowski, Michael Adamzik, Philipp Heinz, Marianne Tokic, Nina Timmesfeld, Frank Martin Brunkhorst, Jürgen Wasem and 1 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR medical informatics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. 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

11 authors.

Godwin Denk GiebelInstitute for Health Care Management and Research, University of Duisburg-Essen, Essen, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-4182-1927
Pascal RaszkeInstitute for Health Care Management and Research, University of Duisburg-Essen, Essen, Germany.ORCID 0009-0008-6538-0733
Hartmuth NowakDepartment of Anesthesiology, Intensive Care and Pain Therapy, University Hospital Knappschaftskrankenhaus Bochum, Bochum, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-6509-1463
Lars PalmowskiDepartment of Anesthesiology, Intensive Care and Pain Therapy, University Hospital Knappschaftskrankenhaus Bochum, Bochum, Germany.ORCID 0009-0008-9553-6575
Michael AdamzikDepartment of Anesthesiology, Intensive Care and Pain Therapy, University Hospital Knappschaftskrankenhaus Bochum, Bochum, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-7188-4873
Philipp HeinzKnappschaft Kliniken GmbH, Recklinghausen, Germany.ORCID 0009-0007-5331-5785
Marianne TokicDepartment of Medical Informatics, Biometry and Epidemiology, Ruhr University Bochum, Bochum, Germany.ORCID 0000-0001-9789-575X
Nina TimmesfeldDepartment of Medical Informatics, Biometry and Epidemiology, Ruhr University Bochum, Bochum, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-5175-4326
Frank Martin BrunkhorstGerman Sepsis Society, Berlin, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-8132-8651
Jürgen WasemInstitute for Health Care Management and Research, University of Duisburg-Essen, Essen, Germany.ORCID 0000-0001-9653-168X
Nikola BlaseInstitute for Health Care Management and Research, University of Duisburg-Essen, Essen, Germany.ORCID 0000-0003-3774-5009

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundArtificial intelligence (AI)-based systems are receiving increasing attention in the health care sector. While the use of AI is well advanced in some medical applications, such as image recognition, it is still in its infancy in others, such as clinical decision support systems (CDSS). Examples of AI-based CDSS can be found in the context of sepsis prediction or antibiotic prescription. Scientific literature indicates that such systems can support physicians in their daily work and lead to improved patient outcomes. Nevertheless, there are various problems and barriers in this context that should be considered.

objectiveThis study aimed to identify opportunities to optimize AI-based CDSS and their integration into care from the perspective of experts.

methodsSemistructured web-based expert interviews were conducted. Experts representing the perspectives of patients; physicians; caregivers; developers; health insurance representatives; researchers (especially in law and IT); and experts in regulation, market admission and quality management or assurance, and ethics were included. The conversations were recorded and transcribed. Subsequently, a qualitative content analysis was performed. The different approaches to improvement were categorized into groups ("technology," "data," "users," "studies," "law," and "general"). These also served as deductive codes. Inductive codes were determined within an internal project workshop.

resultsIn total, 13 individual and 2 double interviews were conducted with 17 experts. A total of 227 expert statements were included in the analysis. Suggestions were heterogeneous and concerned improvements: (1) in the systems themselves (eg, implementing comprehensive system training involving [future] users; using a comprehensive and high-quality database; considering usability, transparency, and customizability; preventing automation bias through control mechanisms or intelligent design; conducting studies to demonstrate the benefit of the system), (2) on the user side (eg, training [future] physicians could contribute to a more positive attitude and to greater awareness and questioning decision supports suggested by the system and ensuring that the use of the system does not lead to additional work), and (3) in the environment in which the systems are used (eg, increasing the digitalization of the health care system, especially in hospitals; providing transparent public communication about the benefits and risks of AI; providing research funding; clarifying open legal issues, eg, those related to liability; and standardizing and consolidating various approval processes).

conclusionsThis study offers several possible strategies for improving AI-based CDSS and their integration into health care. These were found in the areas of "technology," "data," "users," "studies," "law," and "general." Systems, users, and the environment should be taken into account to ensure that the systems are used safely, effectively, and sustainably. Further studies should investigate both the effectiveness of strategies to improve AI-based CDSS and their integration into health care and the accuracy of their match to specific problems. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): RR2-10.2196/62704.

Indexed as

Artificial IntelligenceDecision Support Systems, ClinicalStakeholder ParticipationHumansInterviews as TopicQualitative ResearchAIartificial intelligencecareCDSSclinical decision support systemsdecision-makinginterviews

Identifiers

PMID40623684
PMCPMC12280832

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.