Randomized Controlled Trials of Artificial Intelligence in Clinical Practice: Systematic Review

被引:16
|
作者
Lam, Thomas Y. T. [1 ,2 ]
Cheung, Max F. K. [3 ]
Munro, Yasmin L. [3 ]
Lim, Kong Meng [3 ]
Shung, Dennis [4 ]
Sung, Joseph J. Y. [3 ,5 ]
机构
[1] Chinese Univ Hong Kong, Jockey Club Sch Publ Hlth & Primary Care, Hong Kong, Peoples R China
[2] Chinese Univ Hong Kong, Stanley Ho Big Data Decis Analyt Res Ctr, Hong Kong, Peoples R China
[3] Nanyang Technol Univ, Lee Kong Chian Sch Med, Singapore, Singapore
[4] Yale Sch Med, Dept Med Digest Dis, New Haven, CT USA
[5] Nanyang Technol Univ, Lee Kong Chian Sch Med, 11 Mandalay Rd, Singapore 308232, Singapore
关键词
artificial intelligence; randomized controlled trial; systematic review; clinical; gastroenterology; clinical informatics; mobile phone; COMPUTER-AIDED DETECTION; ADENOMA MISS RATE; COLONOSCOPY; MULTICENTER; NEOPLASIA;
D O I
10.2196/37188
中图分类号
R19 [保健组织与事业(卫生事业管理)];
学科分类号
摘要
Background: The number of artificial intelligence (AI) studies in medicine has exponentially increased recently. However, there is no clear quantification of the clinical benefits of implementing AI-assisted tools in patient care.Objective: This study aims to systematically review all published randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of AI-assisted tools to characterize their performance in clinical practice. Methods: CINAHL, Cochrane Central, Embase, MEDLINE, and PubMed were searched to identify relevant RCTs published up to July 2021 and comparing the performance of AI-assisted tools with conventional clinical management without AI assistance. We evaluated the primary end points of each study to determine their clinical relevance. This systematic review was conducted following the updated PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) 2020 guidelines. Results: Among the 11,839 articles retrieved, only 39 (0.33%) RCTs were included. These RCTs were conducted in an approximately equal distribution from North America, Europe, and Asia. AI-assisted tools were implemented in 13 different clinical specialties. Most RCTs were published in the field of gastroenterology, with 15 studies on AI-assisted endoscopy. Most RCTs studied biosignal-based AI-assisted tools, and a minority of RCTs studied AI-assisted tools drawn from clinical data. In 77% (30/39) of the RCTs, AI-assisted interventions outperformed usual clinical care, and clinically relevant outcomes improved with AI-assisted intervention in 70% (21/30) of the studies. Small sample size and single-center design limited the generalizability of these studies. Conclusions: There is growing evidence supporting the implementation of AI-assisted tools in daily clinical practice; however, the number of available RCTs is limited and heterogeneous. More RCTs of AI-assisted tools integrated into clinical practice are needed to advance the role of AI in medicine.
引用
收藏
页数:30
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Randomised controlled trials evaluating artificial intelligence in clinical practice: a scoping review
    Han R.
    Acosta J.N.
    Shakeri Z.
    Ioannidis J.P.A.
    Topol E.J.
    Rajpurkar P.
    [J]. The Lancet Digital Health, 2024, 6 (05): : e367 - e373
  • [2] Randomised controlled trials evaluating artificial intelligence in clinical practice: a scoping review
    Han, Ryan
    Acosta, Julian N.
    Shakeri, Zahra
    Ioannidis, John P. A.
    Topol, Eric J.
    Rajpurkar, Pranav
    [J]. LANCET DIGITAL HEALTH, 2024, 6 (05): : e367 - e373
  • [3] Clinical impact and quality of randomized controlled trials involving interventions evaluating artificial intelligence prediction tools: a systematic review
    Qian Zhou
    Zhi-hang Chen
    Yi-heng Cao
    Sui Peng
    [J]. npj Digital Medicine, 4
  • [4] Clinical impact and quality of randomized controlled trials involving interventions evaluating artificial intelligence prediction tools: a systematic review
    Zhou, Qian
    Chen, Zhi-hang
    Cao, Yi-heng
    Peng, Sui
    [J]. NPJ DIGITAL MEDICINE, 2021, 4 (01)
  • [5] USE OF ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE WITH DISTILLERSR SOFTWARE AS A REVIEWER FOR A SYSTEMATIC LITERATURE REVIEW OF RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIALS
    Smela-Lipinska, B.
    Taieb, V
    Szawara, P.
    Tetzlaff, J.
    O'Blenis, P.
    Francois, C.
    [J]. VALUE IN HEALTH, 2019, 22 : S815 - S815
  • [6] Randomized Clinical Trials of Artificial Intelligence
    Angus, Derek C.
    [J]. JAMA-JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, 2020, 323 (11): : 1043 - 1045
  • [7] Advancements in Artificial Intelligence for Precision Diagnosis and Treatment of Myocardial Infarction: A Comprehensive Review of Clinical Trials and Randomized Controlled Trials
    Patel, Syed J.
    Yousuf, Salma
    Padala, Jaswanth V.
    Reddy, Shruta
    Saraf, Pranav
    Nooh, Alaa
    Gutierrez, Luis Miguel A. Fernandez
    Abdirahman, Abdirahman H.
    Tanveer, Rameen
    Rai, Manju
    [J]. CUREUS JOURNAL OF MEDICAL SCIENCE, 2024, 16 (05)
  • [8] APPLICABILITY OF EVIDENCE FROM RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIALS AND SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS TO CLINICAL PRACTICE: A CONCEPTUAL REVIEW
    Malmivaara, Antti
    [J]. JOURNAL OF REHABILITATION MEDICINE, 2021, 53 (06)
  • [9] Quality of reporting of randomised controlled trials of artificial intelligence in healthcare: a systematic review
    Shahzad, Rida
    Ayub, Bushra
    Siddiqui, M. A. Rehman
    [J]. BMJ OPEN, 2022, 12 (09):
  • [10] OUTCOMES REPORTED IN CLINICAL TRIALS OF ROSACEA: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW OF RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIALS
    Ibrahim, Sarah
    Kang, Bianca
    Iyengar, Sanjana
    Schlessinger, Daniel
    Maher, Ian
    Sobanko, Joseph
    Cartee, Todd
    Poon, Emily
    Alam, Murad
    [J]. LASERS IN SURGERY AND MEDICINE, 2021, 53 : S24 - S24