ArticleNPJ digital medicine2026
Impact of artificial intelligence on cardiovascular workflow, engagement, and outcomes: a systematic review.
Article in NPJ digital medicine, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Artificial intelligence, preventive cardiology and making time for what matters: a fellow's voice.American journal of preventive cardiology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Artificial intelligence (AI) is progressively utilized in cardiology; nonetheless, the overarching advantages across various care domains remain ambiguous. We conducted a search of PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, and trial registries for randomized controlled trials up to January 16, 2026, assessing prospectively applied interventions based on machine/deep-learning algorithms while excluding rule-based systems. Endpoints were categorized according to NICE evidence tiers: workflow efficiency (Tier A), patient engagement/health promotion (Tier B), and clinical outcomes (Tier C). The risk of bias was evaluated using RoB 2.0. In 32 randomized controlled trials (27 of which were meta-analyzed), artificial intelligence improved all levels. Tier A: workflow time reduced (SMD - 0.71; 95% CI - 1.04 to -0.39), corresponding to a diagnostic time that is 30-120 s shorter and a decrease of 1.0-4.2 hospital days in trials reporting length of stay. Tier B: Behavioral nudging enhanced medication adherence (RR 1.59; 95% CI 1.01-2.50; NNT = 12). Tier C: decision-support implementations decreased all-cause mortality (RR 0.84; 95% CI 0.75-0.94; I² = 8%; NNT = 32). Limitations encompassed restricted blinding and insufficient sham-AI controls. Data-driven clinical AI yields quantifiable efficiency improvements, enhances engagement, and reduces adverse outcomes when integrated with actionable decision support, hence informing a structured framework for governance and implementation.
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.