A Meta-Analysis of the Diagnostic Test Accuracy of Artificial Intelligence for Predicting Emergency Department Revisits.

The revisit of the emergency department (ED) is a key indicator of emergency care quality. Various strategies have been proposed to reduce ED revisits, including the use of artificial intelligence (AI) models for prediction. However, AI model performance varies significantly, and its true predictive...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Publicado en:Journal of Medical Systems Vol. 49; no. 1; pp. 1 - 16
Autores principales: Kuo, Kuang-Ming, Wu, Wen-Shiann, Chang, Chao Sheng
Formato: meta analysis research systematic review tables/charts Journal Article
Publicado: Springer Nature 6/16/2025
Acceso en línea:Ver este registro en EBSCOhost
fields @attributes:
  recordID: 1
pdfLink:
plink: https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ccm&AN=185967167&site=ehost-live
header:
  @attributes:
    shortDbName: ccm
    uiTerm: 185967167
    longDbName: CINAHL Complete
    uiTag: AN
  controlInfo:
    bkinfo:
    dissinfo:
    jinfo:
      jid:
        01485598
        4N0
      jtl: Journal of Medical Systems
      issn: 01485598
      maglogo: N
    pubinfo:
      dt: 6/16/2025
      vid: 49
      iid: 1
      pid: 237
      pub: Springer Nature
      place: New York, New York
    artinfo:
      ui:
        185967167
        185967167
        185967167
        10.1007/s10916-025-02210-2
        185967167
      ppf: 1
      ppct: 15
      formats:
        fmt:
          – @attributes:
              type: T
          – @attributes:
              type: P
      tig:
        atl: A Meta-Analysis of the Diagnostic Test Accuracy of Artificial Intelligence for Predicting Emergency Department Revisits.
      aug:
        au:
          Kuo, Kuang-Ming
          Wu, Wen-Shiann
          Chang, Chao Sheng
        affil: https://ror.org/04twccc71 Department of Business Management, National United University, No.1, Lienda, 360301, Miaoli, Taiwan
      sug:
        subj:
          Emergency Room Visits Evaluation
          Artificial Intelligence
          Readmission
          Diagnostic Tests, Routine Evaluation
          Quality Assessment
          Prediction Models
          Human
          Funding Source
          Systematic Review
          PubMed
          Meta Analysis
          Descriptive Statistics
          Confidence Intervals
          Machine Learning
          Deep Learning
          English Language
          Peer Review
          Sensitivity and Specificity
          Machine Learning Algorithms
          Checklists
      ab: The revisit of the emergency department (ED) is a key indicator of emergency care quality. Various strategies have been proposed to reduce ED revisits, including the use of artificial intelligence (AI) models for prediction. However, AI model performance varies significantly, and its true predictive capability remains unclear. To address these gaps, the primary purpose of this study is to evaluate the performance of AI in predicting ED revisits through a meta-analysis. Specifically, this study aims to (1) Quantitatively assess the predictive performance of AI in ED revisit prediction and (2) Identify covariates contributing to between-study heterogeneity. A systematic search was conducted on December 31, 2024, across multiple electronic databases, including Scopus, SpringerLink, ScienceDirect, PubMed, Wiley, Sage, and Google Scholar, to identify relevant studies meeting the following criteria: (1) Utilized machine learning, deep learning, or artificial intelligence techniques to predict patient return visits to the ED, (2) Written in English, and (3) Peer-reviewed. Diagnostic accuracy was assessed using pooled sensitivity, specificity, and area under receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC), while subgroup analysis explored factors contributing to heterogeneity. This meta-analysis included 20 articles, comprising 27 AI models. The summary estimates for ED revisit prediction were as follows: (1) Sensitivity: 0.56 (95% Confidence Interval [CI]: 0.44–0.67), (2) Specificity: 0.92 (95% CI: 0.86–0.96), and (3) AUROC: 0.81 (95% CI: 0.71–0.88). Subgroup analysis identified nationality, missing value-handling strategies, and specific disease samples as potential contributors to between-study heterogeneity. Future research should focus on improving missing value processing and using specific disease samples to enhance model reliability.
      pubtype: Academic Journal
      doctype:
        meta analysis
        research
        systematic review
        tables/charts
        Journal Article
      ougenre: Article
    language: English
    refInfo:
    holdings:
      @attributes:
        islocal: N