SynthesisBMC medical informatics and decision making2026
AI-assisted decision support for sickle cell disease severity stratification using routine blood tests: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in BMC medical informatics and decision making, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundStratifying sickle cell disease (SCD) severity remains challenging, particularly in resource-limited settings. Artificial intelligence (AI) models using routine complete blood count (CBC) parameters have been proposed as accessible tools for risk stratification; however, their overall performance and clinical applicability remain uncertain.
methodsWe conducted a PRISMA-DTA 2020-compliant systematic review and meta-analysis (PROSPERO: CRD420251078389) including 60 studies (25,354 patients across 15 countries, 2010-2025). AI models based on CBC parameters were evaluated against heterogeneous reference standards, including clinical severity classifications and event-based outcomes. Risk of bias was assessed using QUADAS-2 and PROBAST-AI. Pooled estimates were generated using hierarchical summary receiver operating characteristic (HSROC) models.
resultsThe pooled area under the curve (AUC) was 0.87 (95% CI: 0.84-0.90), with sensitivity 0.83 (0.79-0.86) and specificity 0.85 (0.81-0.88). Performance varied by setting, with higher accuracy in high-income countries (AUC 0.90) compared with low- and middle-income settings (AUC 0.82; p < 0.001). Red cell distribution width and platelet count were consistently identified as important predictors. However, substantial heterogeneity in outcome definitions and reference standards limits interpretability.
conclusionsAI models using routine CBC parameters demonstrate promising analytical performance for SCD risk stratification. However, the absence of a universally accepted severity gold standard, variability in outcome definitions, and differences across healthcare settings limit direct clinical applicability. These findings support cautious prospective validation and clinical utility assessment before consideration of broader real-world implementation. CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER: Not applicable.
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.