Applications of artificial intelligence in emergency and critical care diagnostics: a systematic review and meta-analysis

IntroductionArtificial intelligence has come to be the highlight in almost all fields of science. It uses various models and algorithms to detect patterns and specific findings to diagnose a disease with utmost accuracy. With the increasing need for accurate and precise diagnosis of disease, employing artificial intelligence models and concepts in healthcare setup can be beneficial.MethodologyThe search engines and databases employed in this study are PubMed, ScienceDirect and Medline. Studies published between 1st January 2013 to 1st February 2023 were included in this analysis. The selected articles were screened preliminarily using the Rayyan web tool, after which investigators screened the selected articles individually. The risk of bias for the selected studies was assessed using QUADAS-2 tool specially designed to test bias among studies related to diagnostic test reviews.ResultsIn this review, 17 studies were included from a total of 12,173 studies. These studies were analysed for their sensitivity, accuracy, positive predictive value, specificity and negative predictive value in diagnosing barrette’s neoplasia, cardiac arrest, esophageal adenocarcinoma, sepsis and gastrointestinal stromal tumors. All the studies reported heterogeneity with p-value <0.05 at confidence interval 95%.ConclusionThe existing evidential data suggests that artificial intelligence can be highly helpful in the field of diagnosis providing maximum precision and early detection. This helps to prevent disease progression and also helps to provide treatment at the earliest. Employing artificial intelligence in diagnosis will define the advancement of health care environment and also be beneficial in every aspect concerned with treatment to illnesses

SARS-CoV-2 vaccination modelling for safe surgery to save lives: data from an international prospective cohort study

Background: Preoperative SARS-CoV-2 vaccination could support safer elective surgery. Vaccine numbers are limited so this study aimed to inform their prioritization by modelling. Methods: The primary outcome was the number needed to vaccinate (NNV) to prevent one COVID-19-related death in 1 year. NNVs were based on postoperative SARS-CoV-2 rates and mortality in an international cohort study (surgical patients), and community SARS-CoV-2 incidence and case fatality data (general population). NNV estimates were stratified by age (18-49, 50-69, 70 or more years) and type of surgery. Best- and worst-case scenarios were used to describe uncertainty. Results: NNVs were more favourable in surgical patients than the general population. The most favourable NNVs were in patients aged 70 years or more needing cancer surgery (351; best case 196, worst case 816) or non-cancer surgery (733; best case 407, worst case 1664). Both exceeded the NNV in the general population (1840; best case 1196, worst case 3066). NNVs for surgical patients remained favourable at a range of SARS-CoV-2 incidence rates in sensitivity analysis modelling. Globally, prioritizing preoperative vaccination of patients needing elective surgery ahead of the general population could prevent an additional 58 687 (best case 115 007, worst case 20 177) COVID-19-related deaths in 1 year. Conclusion: As global roll out of SARS-CoV-2 vaccination proceeds, patients needing elective surgery should be prioritized ahead of the general population