ReviewJournal of experimental orthopaedics2025
Artificial intelligence fails to outperform orthopaedic surgeons: A systematic review.
Review in Journal of experimental orthopaedics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Multi‑omics integration in osteoarthritis: Unraveling cell‑type‑specific gene‑metabolite networks for precision medicine (Review).International journal of molecular medicine · 2026Review
- Artificial intelligence fails to outperform orthopaedic surgeons: A systematic review.Journal of experimental orthopaedics · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: Artificial intelligence (AI) in orthopaedic surgery is increasingly applied to analyse clinical data, triage patients and interpret imaging with high accuracy. Orthopaedics surgery faces unique challenges, including high patient volumes, complex cases and prolonged waiting lists, highlighting the need for efficiency and decision support. To justify implementation, AI must demonstrate performance comparable to surgeons. This systematic review evaluates AI's performance relative to surgeons to determine its value as a complementary tool in orthopaedic practice. Methods: This systematic review was conducted using OVID Medline. Relevant studies published up to 13 August 2025 were identified. Included studies were categorised into decision making, management plans, clinical knowledge, quality control, and answering patients' frequently asked questions (FAQs). Results: Of 419 identified studies, 16 were eligible. ChatGPT showed high sensitivity in identifying patients achieving clinically meaningful improvements (97% vs. 90% for surgeons) but lower specificity (33% vs. 63%) and accuracy (65% vs. 76%). AI demonstrates comparable or superior performance to surgeons in emergency scenarios and answering patient FAQs, scoring higher across empathy, accuracy, completeness and overall quality (4.4 vs. 3.5-3.7). Residents outperformed AI in examinations (74.2% vs. 47.2%). AI showed limited accuracy in knee osteoarthritis radiographic staging (35% vs. >80%). Conclusions: AI demonstrates the potential to support clinical efficiency and patient communication in orthopaedics. However, concerns about bias, quality risks, overconfidence and reliance on outdated information prevent it from replacing human expertise. Clinician-led design and validation are required to ensure safe and effective integration into clinical practice. Level of Evidence: Level IV.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
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.