ReviewCureus2026
Artificial Intelligence in Predicting Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting Among Surgical Patients Following General Anesthesia: A Systematic Review.
Review in Cureus, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Artificial intelligence (AI) may improve perioperative risk prediction by integrating complex clinical and physiological data, but its performance and readiness for clinical use remain uncertain. We evaluated AI models predicting postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV), perioperative hypotension, prolonged intensive care unit (ICU) stay, in-hospital mortality, and neurological complications after general anesthesia. We searched bibliographic databases from inception to June 2026 for studies developing or validating AI-based prediction models in surgical patients undergoing general anesthesia. Two reviewers independently screened studies, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias and applicability using PROBAST+AI. Owing to heterogeneity in populations, outcomes, prediction horizons, algorithms, and validation methods, findings were synthesized narratively. Of 2,329 records identified, 22 studies were included. Sample sizes ranged from 221 to 106,860 participants. PONV models had area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) values of 0.561-0.960, whereas hypotension models ranged from 0.630 to 0.950. Models for prolonged ICU stay, mortality, and neurological complications showed AUCs up to 0.920, 0.930, and 0.890, respectively. Higher AUCs were not consistently accompanied by balanced sensitivity and specificity. All studies had high overall risk of bias, principally because of limited external validation, incomplete calibration reporting, and analytical concerns. AI shows promise for perioperative risk prediction, particularly for short-horizon hypotension and data-rich postoperative outcomes. However, substantial heterogeneity, high risk of bias, and scarce external validation preclude routine clinical implementation. Prospective, multicenter, calibrated, and impact-evaluated models are required.
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.