Trial reportThe Journal of hospital infection2026
AI-enabled digital wound monitoring after cardiac surgery: a randomised controlled feasibility, safety, and acceptability trial.
Trial report in The Journal of hospital infection, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT06475703 (Wound Imaging Software and Digital platfOrM to Detect and Prioritise Non-healing Surgical Wounds), which is not on this map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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.
Wound Imaging Software and Digital platfOrM to Detect and Prioritise Non-healing Surgical Wounds (WISDOM)
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Trial
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
15 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSurgical site infection after cardiac surgery is a common cause of morbidity and unplanned healthcare use, with most infections developing after hospital discharge. Remote wound monitoring using smartphone technology and artificial intelligence (AI) may support earlier identification of complications.
aimTo evaluate the feasibility, acceptability, and safety of an AI-enabled digital wound monitoring platform plus usual care (Isla-AI) compared with usual care (UC) alone. DESIGN, SETTING, AND
participantsThis multi-centre, two-arm randomised controlled feasibility trial was conducted at two U.K. hospitals between August 2024 and January 2025. Adults undergoing cardiac surgery were randomised to receive Isla-AI or UC. The study was not powered to assess effectiveness.
results120 patients were randomised and participated (Isla-AI N = 62; UC N = 58). Feasibility targets were exceeded: 60% of eligible patients approached consented, 95% of Isla-AI participants submitted at least one image, and 92% completed the study. Ninety-eight percent of images were suitable for clinical assessment. Clinician agreement with AI priority flags was 87%. AI prioritisation performance was slightly better for patients with darker skin tones. More than half of participants required assistance to capture or submit wound images. Patient- and staff-acceptability of AI was largely favourable. Adverse and serious adverse event rates were similar across both groups. The proportion of patients accessing National Health Service (NHS) resources for wound-related problems and antibiotics was lower in the Isla-AI group.
conclusionsThese findings support progression to a large, definitive multi-centre effectiveness trial, with further attention to equity, usability, and workflow integration.
trial registrationIRAS 338141; local project UHDB/2022/024. ISRCTN16900119. CLINICALTRIALS: GOV: NCT06475703. Date registered: 20/06/2024.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
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.