Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40904736›Full record

ReviewHealthcare technology letters

Artificial Intelligence Challenges in the Healthcare Industry: A Systematic Review of Recent Evidence.

Esmaeil Mehraeen, Haleh Siami, Sarah Montazeryan, Reza Molavi, Akram Feyzabadi, Iman Parvizy, Zeynab Ataei Masjedlu, Maryam Naseri Dehkalani, Sanam Mahmoudi, Alihasan Ahmadipour

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Healthcare technology letters. 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. Review
  3. Article
  4. Psychodermatology: Current Scope and Future Prospects.Indian dermatology online journal · 2026
    Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. 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

10 authors.

Esmaeil MehraeenDepartment of Health Information Technology Khalkhal University of Medical Sciences Khalkhal Iran.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4108-2973
Haleh SiamiSchool of Medicine Islamic Azad University Tehran Iran.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3591-0293
Sarah MontazeryanTorbat Heydarieh University of Medical Sciences Torbat Heydarieh Iran.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0009-6572-2083
Reza MolaviFaculty of Medical Information and Management Shiraz University of Medical Sciences Shiraz Iran.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0000-4114-4148
Akram FeyzabadiBoshroyeh Public Health Center Birjand University of Medical Sciences Birjand Iran.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0002-6631-9033
Iman ParvizyDepartment of Health Information Management School of Allied Medical Sciences Tehran University of Medical Sciences Tehran Iran.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0000-4418-7928
Zeynab Ataei MasjedluSchool of Management and Medical Informatics Tabriz University of Medical Sciences Tabriz Iran.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0008-7930-7190
Maryam Naseri DehkalaniFaculty of Health Mazandaran University of Medical Sciences Sari Iran.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0002-6181-7244
Sanam MahmoudiSchool of Medicine Hamadan University of Medical Sciences Hamadan Iran.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0009-2893-5936
Alihasan AhmadipourFaculty of Medical Sciences Kerman University of Medical Sciences Kerman Iran.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0001-8209-9571

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

While AI is essential to the development of electronic health, it has challenges that, if resolved, might improve the standard of healthcare services. The purpose of this study is to classify and identify these issues in the healthcare field. The study utilised a systematic review approach, drawing data from the Scopus, Web of Science, and PubMed databases. The search results were imported into EndNote software, and experienced experts reviewed the relevant articles. The selection criteria focused on original research articles in English, published between 2019 and July 2024, that provided full text and sufficient data on AI challenges. Forty-seven articles were included in the final analysis out of the 1453 that were identified. There were 17 categories for the obstacles, and the most common ones were technical challenges (29.8%), technological adoption (25.5%) and reliability and validity (23.4%). There are 24 categories into which the healthcare domains were divided. This article emphasises the critical importance of addressing technical challenges, enhancing reliability and validity, safeguarding patient data, and overcoming the lack of knowledge and understanding of artificial intelligence among patients and the general public to ensure the responsible and equitable implementation of AI in healthcare.

Indexed as

health carelearning (artificial intelligence)risk analysis

Identifiers

PMID40904736
PMCPMC12402815

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.