Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41536317›Full record

ReviewNorth American Spine Society journal2026

Artificial intelligence in spine care: A scoping review of treatment applications.

Victoria A Bensel, Anne Habeck, Marcda Hilaire Brunot, Eleni-James Becton, Monika Ray, Alexandria L Brackett, Anthony J Lisi

Registry-linked trialAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in North American Spine Society journal, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT07733752 (When AI Is the First Clinician), which is not on this map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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.

NCT07733752 recruitingnot on this map

When AI Is the First Clinician: Impact of Pre-Visit AI Use on Presentation, Diagnostic Expectations, and Shared Decision-Making in Spine Physical Therapy

Typeobservational_patient_registrySponsorAssiut UniversityRan2026 to 2027Enrolled200ConditionsLow Back Pain, Neck Pain, RadiculopathyArmsre-visit AI symptom-checker use
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. 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

7 authors.

Victoria A BenselDepartment of Biomedical Informatics and Data Science: 100 College St Fl 9, New Haven, CT 06510 United States.
Anne HabeckBristol, CT: 65 Melrose Street, Bristol, CT, 06010 United States.
Marcda Hilaire BrunotNorth Florida/South Georgia Veterans Health System, 1601 Southwest Archer Road, Gainesville, FL 32608-1135 United States.
Eleni-James BectonDepartment of Clinical Research, The University of Jamestown:600 College Drive, Jamestown, ND 58401 United States.
Monika RayDepartment of Internal Medicine, School of Medicine, University of California Davis, 4301 X Street, Sacramento, CA 95817 United States.
Alexandria L BrackettHarvey Cushing/John Hay Whitney Medical Library at Yale University, 333 Cedar Street, New Haven, CT 06510 United States.
Anthony J LisiDepartment of Biomedical Informatics and Data Science: 100 College St Fl 9, New Haven, CT 06510 United States.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Artificial intelligence (AI) is increasingly applied in healthcare to support decision-making, personalize treatment, and improve outcomes. In spine care, AI has been used for both operative and nonoperative interventions, including surgical planning, outcome prediction, and digital tools for chronic low back pain (cLBP). However, evidence remains fragmented and variable in quality, limiting its utility for clinicians and researchers. This review maps the current literature on AI in spinal disorder treatment and highlights gaps for future research. Methods: This scoping review followed Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) and PRISMA-ScR guidelines. Ovid MEDLINE, AMED, Embase, Cochrane CENTRAL, Web of Science, and Scopus were searched from January 2019 to December 2024. Eligible studies were English-language, peer-reviewed, involved AI applied to treatment interventions in human participants, included a comparison group, and provided sufficient methodological detail. No geographic restrictions were applied. Studies were evaluated by AI technology, treatment modality, outcomes, and quality. Methodological quality was assessed using a 19-point scoring system covering study design, reporting clarity, data validation, and feature selection. Results: The search yielded 1,782 manuscripts; 16 met inclusion criteria. Of these, 3 originated from the United States, 8 were single-country studies, and 5 were international collaborations. Fourteen studies focused on nonoperative management of musculoskeletal pain, particularly cLBP, using chatbots, AI-driven exercise platforms, and decision-support systems. These demonstrated modest improvements in pain, disability, and quality of life, with high adherence and satisfaction. Two studies investigated operative applications, reporting favorable results. Methodological scores ranged from 8.5 to 17/19, with common limitations in data validation and feature selection. Conclusions: Current literature demonstrates AI applications in nonoperative management of cLBP and in operative contexts such as surgical planning and outcome prediction. Most studies addressed cLBP, with limited exploration of neck pain, highlighting an area for future investigation.

Indexed as

Artificial intelligenceChatbotsChronic low back painClinical decision supportDigital healthExercise therapyMachine learningOperative and nonoperative interventionsSelf-management applicationsSpine care

Identifiers

PMID41536317
PMCPMC12795695

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

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.