Evidence mapPaperPMID 37832969Full record

Trial reportBMJ open quality2023

Effectiveness of an artificial intelligence clinical assistant decision support system to improve the incidence of hospital-associated venous thromboembolism: a prospective, randomised controlled study.

Xiaoyan Huang, Shuai Zhou, Xudong Ma, Songyi Jiang, Yuanyuan Xu, Yi You, Jieming Qu, Hanbing Shang, Yong Lu

Open access · goldAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in BMJ open quality, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
4.4field-weighted citation impact, top 4% of its field
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

11 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 16 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Artificial intelligence in clinical thrombosis and hemostasis: A review.Research and practice in thrombosis and haemostasis · 2025
    Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
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

9 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Xiaoyan Huang *Dean's Office, RuiJin Hospital LuWan Branch, School of Medicine, Shanghai Jiaotong University, Shanghai, China.ORCID 0000-0002-7280-779X
Shuai Zhou *Division of Medical Affairs, Ruijin Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, Shanghai, China.ORCID 0000-0002-8755-1192
Xudong Ma *Department of Medical Administration, National Health Commission of the People's Republic of China, Beijing, China.
Songyi JiangSolution Center For Quality Improvement, Beijing Huimei Cloud Technology Co. Ltd, Beijing, China.
Yuanyuan XuGeneral Office, Shanghai Hospital Association, Shanghai, China.
Yi YouSolution Center For Quality Improvement, Beijing Huimei Cloud Technology Co. Ltd, Beijing, China.
Jieming QuDepartment of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, Ruijin Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, Shanghai, China.
Hanbing ShangDepartment of Neurosurgery, Ruijin Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, Shanghai, China 18917762053@163.com Neuro_paper@126.com.
Yong LuShanghai Venous Thromboembolism Alliance, Shanghai, China 18917762053@163.com Neuro_paper@126.com.
Shanghai Jiao Tong University · CNCloud Computing Center · CNRuijin Hospital · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThromboprophylaxis has been determined to be safe, effective and cost-effective for hospitalised patients at venous thromboembolism (VTE) risk. However, Chinese medical institutions have not yet fully used or improperly used thromboprophylaxis. The effectiveness of information technology applied to thromboprophylaxis in hospitalised patients has been proved in many retrospective studies, lacking of prospective research evidence.

methodsAll hospitalised patients aged >18 years not discharged within 24 hours from 1 September 2020 to 31 May 2021 were prospectively enrolled. Patients were randomly assigned to the control (9890 patients) or intervention group (9895 patients). The control group implemented conventional VTE prevention programmes; the intervention group implemented an Artificial Intelligence Clinical Assistant Decision Support System (AI-CDSS) on the basis of conventional prevention. Intergroup demographics, disease status, hospital length of stay (LOS), VTE risk assessment and VTE prophylaxis were compared using the χ

resultsThe control and intervention groups had similar baseline characteristics. The mean age was 58.32±15.41 years, and mean LOS was 7.82±7.07 days. In total, 5027 (25.40%) and 2707 (13.67%) patients were assessed as having intermediate-to-high VTE risk and high bleeding risk, respectively. The incidence of hospital-associated VTE (HA-VTE) was 0.38%, of which 86.84% had deep vein thrombosis. Compared with the control group, the incidence of HA-VTE decreased by 46.00%, mechanical prophylaxis rate increased by 24.00% and intensity of drug use increased by 9.72% in the intervention group. However, AI-CDSS use did not increase the number of clinical diagnostic tests, prophylaxis rate or appropriate prophylaxis rate.

conclusionsThromboprophylaxis is inadequate in hospitalised patients with VTE risk. The role of AI-CDSS in VTE risk management is unknown and needs further in-depth study. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ChiCTR2000035452.

Indexed as

Venous ThromboembolismAdultAgedAnticoagulantsArtificial IntelligenceHospitalsHumansIncidenceMiddle AgedProspective StudiesRetrospective StudiesAnticoagulantscomparative effectiveness researchhealthcare quality improvementpatient safety

Identifiers

PMID37832969
PMCPMC10582876
OpenAlexW4387618747

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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 Socratic graph.