Artificial intelligence in fracture detection: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background: Patients with fractures are a common emergency presentation and may be misdiagnosed at radiologic imaging. An increasing number of studies apply artificial intelligence (AI) techniques to fracture detection as an adjunct to clinician diagnosis. Purpose: To perform a systematic review and meta-analysis comparing the diagnostic performance in fracture detection between AI and clinicians in peer-reviewed publications and the gray literature (ie, articles published on preprint repositories). Materials and Methods: A search of multiple electronic databases between January 2018 and July 2020 (updated June 2021) was performed that included any primary research studies that developed and/or validated AI for the purposes of fracture detection at any imaging modality and excluded studies that evaluated image segmentation algorithms. Meta-analysis with a hierarchical model to calculate pooled sensitivity and specificity was used. Risk of bias was assessed by using a modified Prediction Model Study Risk of Bias Assessment Tool, or PROBAST, checklist. Results: Included for analysis were 42 studies, with 115 contingency tables extracted from 32 studies (55061 images). Thirty-seven studies identified fractures on radiographs and five studies identified fractures on CT images. For internal validation test sets, the pooled sensitivity was 92% (95% CI: 88, 93) for AI and 91% (95% CI: 85, 95) for clinicians, and the pooled specificity was 91% (95% CI: 88, 93) for AI and 92% (95% CI: 89, 92) for clinicians. For external validation test sets, the pooled sensitivity was 91% (95% CI: 84, 95) for AI and 94% (95% CI: 90, 96) for clinicians, and the pooled specificity was 91% (95% CI: 81, 95) for AI and 94% (95% CI: 91, 95) for clinicians. There were no statistically significant differences between clinician and AI performance. There were 22 of 42 (52%) studies that were judged to have high risk of bias. Meta-regression identified multiple sources of heterogeneity in the data, including risk of bias and fracture type. Conclusion: Artificial intelligence (AI) and clinicians had comparable reported diagnostic performance in fracture detection, suggesting that AI technology holds promise as a diagnostic adjunct in future clinical practice

Stakeholder perspectives towards diagnostic artificial intelligence: a co-produced qualitative evidence synthesis

Background: Diagnosis is a cornerstone of medical practice. Worldwide, there is increased demand for diagnostic services, exacerbating workforce shortages. Artificial intelligence (AI) technologies may improve diagnostic efficiency, accuracy, and access. Understanding stakeholder perspectives is key to informing implementation of complex interventions. We systematically reviewed the literature on stakeholder perspectives on diagnostic AI, including all English-language peer-reviewed primary qualitative or mixed-methods research. Methods: We searched PubMed, Ovid MEDLINE/Embase, Scopus, CINAHL and Web of Science (22/2/2023 and updated 8/2/2024). The Critical Appraisal Skills Programme Checklist informed critical appraisal. We used a ‘best-fit’ framework approach for analysis, using the Non-adoption, Abandonment, Scale-up, Spread, Sustainability (NASSS) framework. This study was pre-registered (PROSPERO CRD42022313782). Findings: We screened 16,577 articles and included 44. 689 participants were interviewed, and 402 participated in focus groups. Four stakeholder groups were described: patients, clinicians, researchers and healthcare leaders. We found an under-representation of patients, researchers and leaders across articles. We summarise the differences and relationships between each group in a conceptual model, hinging on the establishment of trust, engagement and collaboration. We present a modification of the NASSS framework, tailored to diagnostic AI. Interpretation: We provide guidance for future research and implementation of diagnostic AI, highlighting the importance of representing all stakeholder groups. We suggest that implementation strategies consider how any proposed software fits within the extended NASSS-AI framework, and how stakeholder priorities and concerns have been addressed

Time to recovery following open and endoscopic carpal tunnel decompression: meta-analysis

Background: Carpal tunnel release (CTR) can be performed using either an open or endoscopic approach. The patient recovery trajectories remain poorly understood. This study aimed to define and compare patient-reported recovery following unilateral open and endoscopic CTR. Methods: A PRISMA-compliant, preregistered (CRD42023427718) systematic review was conducted, searching PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases on 4 July 2023 and 21 August 2024. Studies were included if they reported recovery data (patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs)) at predefined time points for adults undergoing unilateral CTR. Boston Carpal Tunnel Questionnaire and Quick Disabilities of Arm, Shoulder, and Hand scores were extracted. Standardized mean change (SMC) scores from baseline were pooled using random-effects meta-analysis. An innovative modification of the National Institutes of Health quality assessment tools was used to evaluate the risk of bias. Results: In all, 49 studies were included (4546 participants included in the analysis; 3137 open CTR, 1409 endoscopic CTR). Both approaches improved PROM scores over 12 weeks, with early (4-week) outcomes strongly correlating (>0.89) with later (12-week) outcomes. Symptoms continued improving up to 104 weeks. At 1 week, open CTR showed symptomatic deterioration (SMC 10.29; 95% confidence interval (c.i.) 6.35 and 14.21 respectively), comparatively, endoscopic CTR demonstrated an improvement (SMC −2.83; 95% c.i. −7.80 and 2.14 respectively). By 2 weeks, symptom severity remained slightly worse in open CTR, but confidence intervals overlapped from week 3 and thereafter open CTR showed greater symptomatic improvement. Most studies had a high risk of bias and measured outcomes too infrequently for a granular comparison. Conclusions: Patient-reported recovery trajectories for CTR can inform patient counselling and future research. Endoscopic CTR may result in fewer symptoms in the first 2 weeks, but open CTR may offer comparable or potentially greater improvement thereafter. Future trials with high-frequency PROM capture should prioritize early (first 3 weeks) and long-term (≥24 weeks) outcomes

Advances in turbulence measurements using new Correlation ECE and nT-phase diagnostics at ASDEX Upgrade

United States. Department of Energy (Grants DE-SC0006419 and DE-SC0017381)Euratom Research and Training Programme 2014-2018 (Grant agreement 633053

Rare and unusual case of familial focal dermal hypoplasia (Goltz syndrome) presenting to otolaryngology in the UK

Goltz syndrome or focal dermal hypoplasia (FDH), is an X-linked dominant condition which predominantly involves the skin, limbs and eyes. In otolaryngology, FDH has been poorly described, but can result in increased symptoms of obstructive sleep apnoea requiring surgery. There have also been documented cases of mixed severe hearing loss secondary to congenital ossicular anomalies. More frequently, patients present to the ear–nose–throat clinic with symptoms of dysphagia, secondary to papillomatosis. A 36-year-old woman presented with pain, irritation and dysphagia with a known diagnosis of FDH. She was subsequently investigated with an oesophago-gastro-duodenoscopy, Barium Swallow and an MRI neck scan with contrast. Lymphoid hyperplasia was found on investigation and the patient underwent a panendoscopy with CO2 laser to the lesion with good clinical outcome. This case report highlights the need for multidisciplinary team involvement to ensure full consideration of management options.</jats:p

The surgical safety checklist and patient outcomes after surgery: a prospective observational cohort study, systematic review and meta-analysis

© 2017 British Journal of Anaesthesia Background: The surgical safety checklist is widely used to improve the quality of perioperative care. However, clinicians continue to debate the clinical effectiveness of this tool. Methods: Prospective analysis of data from the International Surgical Outcomes Study (ISOS), an international observational study of elective in-patient surgery, accompanied by a systematic review and meta-analysis of published literature. The exposure was surgical safety checklist use. The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality and the secondary outcome was postoperative complications. In the ISOS cohort, a multivariable multi-level generalized linear model was used to test associations. To further contextualise these findings, we included the results from the ISOS cohort in a meta-analysis. Results are reported as odds ratios (OR) with 95% confidence intervals. Results: We included 44 814 patients from 497 hospitals in 27 countries in the ISOS analysis. There were 40 245 (89.8%) patients exposed to the checklist, whilst 7508 (16.8%) sustained ≥1 postoperative complications and 207 (0.5%) died before hospital discharge. Checklist exposure was associated with reduced mortality [odds ratio (OR) 0.49 (0.32–0.77); P\u3c0.01], but no difference in complication rates [OR 1.02 (0.88–1.19); P=0.75]. In a systematic review, we screened 3732 records and identified 11 eligible studies of 453 292 patients including the ISOS cohort. Checklist exposure was associated with both reduced postoperative mortality [OR 0.75 (0.62–0.92); P\u3c0.01; I2=87%] and reduced complication rates [OR 0.73 (0.61–0.88); P\u3c0.01; I2=89%). Conclusions: Patients exposed to a surgical safety checklist experience better postoperative outcomes, but this could simply reflect wider quality of care in hospitals where checklist use is routine