Search

Background: The reporting of adverse events (AEs) relating to medical devices is a long-standing area of concern, with suboptimal reporting due to a range of factors including a failure to recognize the association of AEs with medical devices, lack of knowledge of how to report AEs, and a general culture of nonreporting. The introduction of artificial intelligence as a medical device (AIaMD) requires a robust safety monitoring environment that recognizes both generic risks of a medical device and some of the increasingly recognized risks of AIaMD (such as algorithmic bias). There is an urgent need to understand the limitations of current AE reporting systems and explore potential mechanisms for how AEs could be detected, attributed, and reported with a view to improving the early detection of safety signals., Objective: The systematic review outlined in this protocol aims to yield insights into the frequency and severity of AEs while characterizing the events using existing regulatory guidance., Methods: Publicly accessible AE databases will be searched to identify AE reports for AIaMD. Scoping searches have identified 3 regulatory territories for which public access to AE reports is provided: the United States, the United Kingdom, and Australia. AEs will be included for analysis if an artificial intelligence (AI) medical device is involved. Software as a medical device without AI is not within the scope of this review. Data extraction will be conducted using a data extraction tool designed for this review and will be done independently by AUK and a second reviewer. Descriptive analysis will be conducted to identify the types of AEs being reported, and their frequency, for different types of AIaMD. AEs will be analyzed and characterized according to existing regulatory guidance., Results: Scoping searches are being conducted with screening to begin in April 2024. Data extraction and synthesis will commence in May 2024, with planned completion by August 2024. The review will highlight the types of AEs being reported for different types of AI medical devices and where the gaps are. It is anticipated that there will be particularly low rates of reporting for indirect harms associated with AIaMD., Conclusions: To our knowledge, this will be the first systematic review of 3 different regulatory sources reporting AEs associated with AIaMD. The review will focus on real-world evidence, which brings certain limitations, compounded by the opacity of regulatory databases generally. The review will outline the characteristics and frequency of AEs reported for AIaMD and help regulators and policy makers to continue developing robust safety monitoring processes., International Registered Report Identifier (irrid): PRR1-10.2196/48156., (©Aditya U Kale, Riya Dattani, Ashley Tabansi, Henry David Jeffry Hogg, Russell Pearson, Ben Glocker, Su Golder, Justin Waring, Xiaoxuan Liu, David J Moore, Alastair K Denniston. Originally published in JMIR Research Protocols (https://www.researchprotocols.org), 11.07.2024.)

Background: Artificial intelligence (AI) medical devices have the potential to transform existing clinical workflows and ultimately improve patient outcomes. AI medical devices have shown potential for a range of clinical tasks such as diagnostics, prognostics, and therapeutic decision-making such as drug dosing. There is, however, an urgent need to ensure that these technologies remain safe for all populations. Recent literature demonstrates the need for rigorous performance error analysis to identify issues such as algorithmic encoding of spurious correlations (eg, protected characteristics) or specific failure modes that may lead to patient harm. Guidelines for reporting on studies that evaluate AI medical devices require the mention of performance error analysis; however, there is still a lack of understanding around how performance errors should be analyzed in clinical studies, and what harms authors should aim to detect and report., Objective: This systematic review will assess the frequency and severity of AI errors and adverse events (AEs) in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) investigating AI medical devices as interventions in clinical settings. The review will also explore how performance errors are analyzed including whether the analysis includes the investigation of subgroup-level outcomes., Methods: This systematic review will identify and select RCTs assessing AI medical devices. Search strategies will be deployed in MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase (Ovid), Cochrane CENTRAL, and clinical trial registries to identify relevant papers. RCTs identified in bibliographic databases will be cross-referenced with clinical trial registries. The primary outcomes of interest are the frequency and severity of AI errors, patient harms, and reported AEs. Quality assessment of RCTs will be based on version 2 of the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool (RoB2). Data analysis will include a comparison of error rates and patient harms between study arms, and a meta-analysis of the rates of patient harm in control versus intervention arms will be conducted if appropriate., Results: The project was registered on PROSPERO in February 2023. Preliminary searches have been completed and the search strategy has been designed in consultation with an information specialist and methodologist. Title and abstract screening started in September 2023. Full-text screening is ongoing and data collection and analysis began in April 2024., Conclusions: Evaluations of AI medical devices have shown promising results; however, reporting of studies has been variable. Detection, analysis, and reporting of performance errors and patient harms is vital to robustly assess the safety of AI medical devices in RCTs. Scoping searches have illustrated that the reporting of harms is variable, often with no mention of AEs. The findings of this systematic review will identify the frequency and severity of AI performance errors and patient harms and generate insights into how errors should be analyzed to account for both overall and subgroup performance., Trial Registration: PROSPERO CRD42023387747; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=387747., International Registered Report Identifier (irrid): PRR1-10.2196/51614., (©Aditya U Kale, Henry David Jeffry Hogg, Russell Pearson, Ben Glocker, Su Golder, April Coombe, Justin Waring, Xiaoxuan Liu, David J Moore, Alastair K Denniston. Originally published in JMIR Research Protocols (https://www.researchprotocols.org), 28.06.2024.)

Background: The rhetoric surrounding clinical artificial intelligence (AI) often exaggerates its effect on real-world care. Limited understanding of the factors that influence its implementation can perpetuate this., Objective: In this qualitative systematic review, we aimed to identify key stakeholders, consolidate their perspectives on clinical AI implementation, and characterize the evidence gaps that future qualitative research should target., Methods: Ovid-MEDLINE, EBSCO-CINAHL, ACM Digital Library, Science Citation Index-Web of Science, and Scopus were searched for primary qualitative studies on individuals' perspectives on any application of clinical AI worldwide (January 2014-April 2021). The definition of clinical AI includes both rule-based and machine learning-enabled or non-rule-based decision support tools. The language of the reports was not an exclusion criterion. Two independent reviewers performed title, abstract, and full-text screening with a third arbiter of disagreement. Two reviewers assigned the Joanna Briggs Institute 10-point checklist for qualitative research scores for each study. A single reviewer extracted free-text data relevant to clinical AI implementation, noting the stakeholders contributing to each excerpt. The best-fit framework synthesis used the Nonadoption, Abandonment, Scale-up, Spread, and Sustainability (NASSS) framework. To validate the data and improve accessibility, coauthors representing each emergent stakeholder group codeveloped summaries of the factors most relevant to their respective groups., Results: The initial search yielded 4437 deduplicated articles, with 111 (2.5%) eligible for inclusion (median Joanna Briggs Institute 10-point checklist for qualitative research score, 8/10). Five distinct stakeholder groups emerged from the data: health care professionals (HCPs), patients, carers and other members of the public, developers, health care managers and leaders, and regulators or policy makers, contributing 1204 (70%), 196 (11.4%), 133 (7.7%), 129 (7.5%), and 59 (3.4%) of 1721 eligible excerpts, respectively. All stakeholder groups independently identified a breadth of implementation factors, with each producing data that were mapped between 17 and 24 of the 27 adapted Nonadoption, Abandonment, Scale-up, Spread, and Sustainability subdomains. Most of the factors that stakeholders found influential in the implementation of rule-based clinical AI also applied to non-rule-based clinical AI, with the exception of intellectual property, regulation, and sociocultural attitudes., Conclusions: Clinical AI implementation is influenced by many interdependent factors, which are in turn influenced by at least 5 distinct stakeholder groups. This implies that effective research and practice of clinical AI implementation should consider multiple stakeholder perspectives. The current underrepresentation of perspectives from stakeholders other than HCPs in the literature may limit the anticipation and management of the factors that influence successful clinical AI implementation. Future research should not only widen the representation of tools and contexts in qualitative research but also specifically investigate the perspectives of all stakeholder HCPs and emerging aspects of non-rule-based clinical AI implementation., Trial Registration: PROSPERO (International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews) CRD42021256005; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=256005., International Registered Report Identifier (irrid): RR2-10.2196/33145., (©Henry David Jeffry Hogg, Mohaimen Al-Zubaidy, Technology Enhanced Macular Services Study Reference Group, James Talks, Alastair K Denniston, Christopher J Kelly, Johann Malawana, Chrysanthi Papoutsi, Marion Dawn Teare, Pearse A Keane, Fiona R Beyer, Gregory Maniatopoulos. Originally published in the Journal of Medical Internet Research (https://www.jmir.org), 10.01.2023.)