[Intelligent systems tools in the diagnosis of acute coronary syndromes: A systemic review]

Quality assessment standards in artificial intelligence diagnostic accuracy systematic reviews: a meta-research study

Artificial intelligence (AI) centred diagnostic systems are increasingly recognised as robust solutions in healthcare delivery pathways. In turn, there has been a concurrent rise in secondary research studies regarding these technologies in order to influence key clinical and policymaking decisions. It is therefore essential that these studies accurately appraise methodological quality and risk of bias within shortlisted trials and reports. In order to assess whether this critical step is performed, we undertook a meta-research study evaluating adherence to the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2 (QUADAS-2) tool within AI diagnostic accuracy systematic reviews. A literature search was conducted on all studies published from 2000 to December 2020. Of 50 included reviews, 36 performed the quality assessment, of which 27 utilised the QUADAS-2 tool. Bias was reported across all four domains of QUADAS-2. Two hundred forty-three of 423 studies (57.5%) across all systematic reviews utilising QUADAS-2 reported a high or unclear risk of bias in the patient selection domain, 110 (26%) reported a high or unclear risk of bias in the index test domain, 121 (28.6%) in the reference standard domain and 157 (37.1%) in the flow and timing domain. This study demonstrates the incomplete uptake of quality assessment tools in reviews of AI-based diagnostic accuracy studies and highlights inconsistent reporting across all domains of quality assessment. Poor standards of reporting act as barriers to clinical implementation. The creation of an AI-specific extension for quality assessment tools of diagnostic accuracy AI studies may facilitate the safe translation of AI tools into clinical practice.

Impact of Big Data Analytics on People's Health: Overview of Systematic Reviews and Recommendations for Future Studies

Background

Although the potential of big data analytics for health care is well recognized, evidence is lacking on its effects on public health.

Objective

The aim of this study was to assess the impact of the use of big data analytics on people’s health based on the health indicators and core priorities in the World Health Organization (WHO) General Programme of Work 2019/2023 and the European Programme of Work (EPW), approved and adopted by its Member States, in addition to SARS-CoV-2–related studies. Furthermore, we sought to identify the most relevant challenges and opportunities of these tools with respect to people’s health.

Methods

Six databases (MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews via Cochrane Library, Web of Science, Scopus, and Epistemonikos) were searched from the inception date to September 21, 2020. Systematic reviews assessing the effects of big data analytics on health indicators were included. Two authors independently performed screening, selection, data extraction, and quality assessment using the AMSTAR-2 (A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews 2) checklist.

Results

The literature search initially yielded 185 records, 35 of which met the inclusion criteria, involving more than 5,000,000 patients. Most of the included studies used patient data collected from electronic health records, hospital information systems, private patient databases, and imaging datasets, and involved the use of big data analytics for noncommunicable diseases. “Probability of dying from any of cardiovascular, cancer, diabetes or chronic renal disease” and “suicide mortality rate” were the most commonly assessed health indicators and core priorities within the WHO General Programme of Work 2019/2023 and the EPW 2020/2025. Big data analytics have shown moderate to high accuracy for the diagnosis and prediction of complications of diabetes mellitus as well as for the diagnosis and classification of mental disorders; prediction of suicide attempts and behaviors; and the diagnosis, treatment, and prediction of important clinical outcomes of several chronic diseases. Confidence in the results was rated as “critically low” for 25 reviews, as “low” for 7 reviews, and as “moderate” for 3 reviews. The most frequently identified challenges were establishment of a well-designed and structured data source, and a secure, transparent, and standardized database for patient data.

Conclusions

Although the overall quality of included studies was limited, big data analytics has shown moderate to high accuracy for the diagnosis of certain diseases, improvement in managing chronic diseases, and support for prompt and real-time analyses of large sets of varied input data to diagnose and predict disease outcomes.

Trial Registration

International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) CRD42020214048; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=214048