Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42920145›Full record

SynthesisBMC medical imaging2026

AI-assisted ultrasound for trauma: a scoping review.

Mümin Murat Yazıcı, İsmail Ataş, Enes Hamdioğlu, Cengiz Kazdal, Ali Çelik, Özcan Yavaşi, Özlem Bilir

Abstract readScoping ReviewSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMC medical imaging, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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.

Mümin Murat YazıcıDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Recep Tayyip Erdoğan University Training and Research Hospital, Rize, Turkey.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1957-7283
İsmail AtaşDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Recep Tayyip Erdoğan University Training and Research Hospital, Rize, Turkey.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6723-8564
Enes HamdioğluDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Recep Tayyip Erdoğan University Training and Research Hospital, Rize, Turkey.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8417-2747
Cengiz KazdalDepartment of Orthopaedics, Recep Tayyip Erdoğan University Faculty of Medicine, Rize, Turkey.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2121-4580
Ali ÇelikDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Recep Tayyip Erdoğan University Faculty of Medicine, Rize, 53020, Turkey. ali.celik@erdogan.edu.tr.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2363-1844
Özcan YavaşiDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Recep Tayyip Erdoğan University Faculty of Medicine, Rize, 53020, Turkey.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8641-7031
Özlem BilirDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Recep Tayyip Erdoğan University Faculty of Medicine, Rize, 53020, Turkey.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9016-1665

Funding

Recep Tayyip Erdoğan University Development Foundation Grant number: 020260060190408
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveArtificial intelligence (AI) has become a disruptive technology in medicine, with rapidly developing implications for education, diagnosis, image enhancement and assessment, prognosis, and treatment. The literature on AI-assisted ultrasound is still developing. Therefore, we aimed to investigate how AI is employed in ultrasound for trauma and how AI-assisted ultrasound could be deployed in clinical practice. MATERIALS AND

methodsThe review was conducted according to JBI's scoping review methodology. An appropriate search strategy was initially formulated for PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science (WoS), and Google Scholar (backward and forward citation tracking). The concepts of "artificial intelligence", "ultrasound", and "trauma" were searched across these databases using their respective Medical Subject Headings (MeSH). The core concepts were AI applications integrated with ultrasound in trauma. In this context, studies focusing on the following categories relating to the use of AI-assisted ultrasound in the field of trauma have been included in the review: (1) diagnostic accuracy, (2) differential diagnosis and confirmation of diagnosis, (3) quality and standardization, (4) operator support, and (5) training and modelling. Data extraction and analysis were performed using Microsoft Excel and were verified.

resultsTwenty-one studies were included. Targeted AI tasks primarily comprised diagnostic abnormality detection and segmentation/localization. Predominantly focused assessment with sonography for trauma (FAST), thoracic trauma evaluation, and extremity trauma. Although high apparent diagnostic accuracy was reported across development-stage retrospective cohorts, independent external validation was executed in only one study, with the remainder bounded by single-center data or synthetic phantoms. Crucially, none of the studies assessed subsequent patient outcomes such as mortality, time to intervention, or resource utilization.

conclusionThis scoping review confirms that while deep learning frameworks show promising retrospective diagnostic performance and image-quality automation, their translation into acute trauma care faces critical technical and clinical bottlenecks. Key current limitations include restricted model interpretability, missing regulatory pathways, a lack of clinician trust, inherent decision-making biases, poor algorithmic transparency, and the lack of patient-outcome tracking. To address these barriers, future studies should be designed with stronger methodological rigor, including prospective, multicenter, randomized controlled, and externally validated approaches.

trial registrationNo clinical trial number is available.

Indexed as

Artificial IntelligenceWounds and InjuriesHumansUltrasonographyArtificial intelligenceDeep learningMachine learningTraumaUltrasound

Identifiers

PMID42920145

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.