Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41587020›Full record

ArticleJournal of medical Internet research2026

Patient Benefits in the Context of Sepsis-Related AI-Based Clinical Decision Support Systems: Scoping Review.

Pascal Raszke, Godwin Denk Giebel, Jürgen Wasem, Michael Adamzik, Hartmuth Nowak, Lars Palmowski, Philipp Heinz, Nina Timmesfeld, Marianne Tokic, Frank Martin Brunkhorst and 1 more

Abstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of medical Internet research, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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

11 authors.

Pascal RaszkeInstitute for Health Care Management and Research, University of Duisburg-Essen, Thea-Leymann-Str. 9, Essen, 45127, Germany, 49 201 183 4395.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0008-6538-0733
Godwin Denk GiebelInstitute for Health Care Management and Research, University of Duisburg-Essen, Thea-Leymann-Str. 9, Essen, 45127, Germany, 49 201 183 4395.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4182-1927
Jürgen WasemInstitute for Health Care Management and Research, University of Duisburg-Essen, Thea-Leymann-Str. 9, Essen, 45127, Germany, 49 201 183 4395.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9653-168X
Michael AdamzikDepartment of Anesthesiology, Intensive Care Medicine and Pain Therapy, Ruhr University Bochum, Knappschaft Kliniken University Hospital Bochum, Bochum, Germany.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7188-4873
Hartmuth NowakDepartment of Anesthesiology, Intensive Care Medicine and Pain Therapy, Center for Artificial Intelligence, Medical Informatics and Data Science, Ruhr-University Bochum, Knappschaft Kliniken University Hospital Bochum, Bochum, Germany.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6509-1463
Lars PalmowskiDepartment of Anesthesiology, Intensive Care Medicine and Pain Therapy, Ruhr University Bochum, Knappschaft Kliniken University Hospital Bochum, Bochum, Germany.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0008-9553-6575
Philipp HeinzKnappschaft Kliniken GmbH, Recklinghausen, Germany.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0007-5331-5785
Nina TimmesfeldDepartment of Medical Informatics, Biometry and Epidemiology, Ruhr University Bochum, Bochum, Germany.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5175-4326
Marianne TokicDepartment of Medical Informatics, Biometry and Epidemiology, Ruhr University Bochum, Bochum, Germany.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9789-575X
Frank Martin BrunkhorstInstitute of Infectious Diseases and Infection Control, Jena University Hospital, Jena, Germany.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8132-8651
Nikola BlaseInstitute for Health Care Management and Research, University of Duisburg-Essen, Thea-Leymann-Str. 9, Essen, 45127, Germany, 49 201 183 4395.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3774-5009

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Global digitalization continues to advance, extending its influence into medicine and health care systems worldwide. In recent years, substantial advancements have been made in the research and development of artificial intelligence (AI), raising questions about its potential in medicine. The integration and application of AI in intensive care medicine, particularly in sepsis treatment, presents significant potential for advancing patient outcomes and enhancing patient-relevant benefits. However, a comprehensive and systematic overview of the full spectrum of patient-relevant benefits associated with AI-based clinical decision support systems (CDSS) remains lacking. Objective: This scoping review aimed to identify and categorize evidence on patient-relevant benefits of AI-based CDSS in sepsis care. Methods: Systematic research was conducted in 4 electronic databases: MEDLINE via PubMed, Embase, the ACM Digital Library, and IEEE Xplore. In addition, a comprehensive search on the websites of relevant international organizations, along with a citation search of the included articles, was conducted. Articles were included if they (1) focused on sepsis and (2) described patient-relevant benefits of AI-based CDSS. Articles published between January 1, 2008, and March 2, 2023, were considered for inclusion. Study selection was performed independently by 2 reviewers. The manuscript was drafted in accordance with the PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews) checklist. The analysis of the included articles was conducted using the program MAXQDA (VERBI Software GmbH), with systemization finalized in a consensus workshop. Results: A total of 3368 records were identified across the 4 databases, of which 24 met the inclusion criteria and were included in the scoping review. The additional search on international websites and in reference lists identified 6 more relevant articles, resulting in 30 included studies. Of these, 20 were quantitative, comprising 7 prospective and 13 retrospective designs. In addition, 1 qualitative study, 1 mixed methods study, 6 review articles, and 2 articles from institutional websites were included. Patient-relevant benefits were systematized in six main categories: (1) prediction, (2) earlier treatment and prioritization of high-risk patients, (3) individualized therapy, (4) improved patient outcomes (including improved Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score, reduced length of stay, and reduced mortality), (5) general improvements in care, and (6) reduced readmission rate. Conclusions: This scoping review underscores the potential of AI-based CDSS to positively impact patient-relevant benefits, particularly in sepsis care, where they demonstrate considerable promise for improving intensive care. However, the majority of the identified studies rely on retrospective database analyses. Future research should focus on validating these findings through prospective studies.

Indexed as

Artificial IntelligenceDecision Support Systems, ClinicalSepsisHumansartificial intelligencebloodstream infectionCDSSclinical decision support systemscomputational intelligencedecision supportmachine learningmedical informaticssepsis

Identifiers

PMID41587020
PMCPMC12834200

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.