Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41291876›Full record

ReviewPatient safety in surgery2025

Artificial intelligence and machine learning approaches for patient safety in complex surgery: a review.

Mohamed Mustaf Ahmed, Zhinya Kawa Othman, Uthman Okikiola Adebayo, Omar Kasimieh, Olalekan John Okesanya, Shuaibu Saidu Musa, Francesco Branda, Victor C Cañezo, Edgar G Cue, Don Eliseo Lucero Prisno Iii

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Patient safety in surgery, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. 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.

Mohamed Mustaf AhmedFaculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, SIMAD University, Mogadishu, Somalia. momustafahmed@simad.edu.so.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0006-5991-4052
Zhinya Kawa OthmanDepartment of Pharmacy, Kurdistan Technical Institute, Sulaymaniyah, Kurdistan Region, Iraq.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0008-3914-0867
Uthman Okikiola AdebayoDepartment of Medical Laboratory Science, Neuropsychiatric Hospital, Aro, Abeokuta, Nigeria.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0000-2000-7451
Omar KasimiehUniversity of the East Ramon Magsaysay Memorial Medical Center, Quezon City, Philippines.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0782-2192
Olalekan John OkesanyaDepartment of Medical Laboratory Science, Neuropsychiatric Hospital, Aro, Abeokuta, Nigeria.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3809-4271
Shuaibu Saidu MusaSchool of Global Health, Faculty of Medicine, Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok, Thailand.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0138-3261
Francesco BrandaUnit of Medical Statistics and Molecular Epidemiology, Campus Bio- Medico University of Rome, Rome, Italy.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9485-3877
Victor C CañezoOffice of the University President, Biliran Province State University, Naval, Leyte, Philippines.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0003-2643-734X
Edgar G CueOffice of the University President, Mountain Province State University, Bontoc, Mountain Province, Philippines.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0005-5728-722X
Don Eliseo Lucero Prisno IiiDepartment of Global Health and Development, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2179-6365

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning (ML) are increasingly being used in surgical care; however, their real-world impact on patient safety is not well established. This narrative review searched PubMed, Scopus, and Google Scholar for English-language studies published from January 1, 2015, to April 30, 2025, that evaluated AI and ML applications in complex surgery and reported quantitative patient safety outcomes. Eligible included studies were published between 2016 and 2025. In total, 21 studies were synthesized across the preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative phases of the study. Preoperatively, ML models consistently outperformed traditional risk scores in identifying high-risk patients and anticipating technical difficulties. Intraoperatively, AI-enabled decision support reduced hypotension exposure in a randomized trial, and computer vision systems supported the safety-critical step verification and instrument tracking. Postoperatively, multimodal approaches combining electronic records, imaging, and smartphone wound photographs predicted complications, such as surgical site infection, and facilitated discharge planning. Emerging evidence from ambulatory surgery, imaging-guided triage, and specialty domains, alongside qualitative studies on workforce readiness, highlights implementation opportunities and human factor requirements. Most evidence is retrospective, single-center, or prototype stage with limited external validation and uncertain generalizability across settings, including low- and middle-income countries. Priorities include multicenter prospective trials, standardized outcomes and reporting, continuous bias and model drift monitoring, robust data infrastructure, and equity-focused implementation to translate algorithmic performance into fewer complications, deaths, and costs.

Identifiers

PMID41291876
PMCPMC12648791

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.