García-Méndez, Juan

Abstract Background Intensive care unit (ICU) clinicians encounter frequent challenges with managing vast amounts of fragmented data while caring for multiple critically ill patients simultaneously. This may lead to increased provider cognitive load that may jeopardize patient safety. Objectives This systematic review assesses the impact of centralized multipatient dashboards on ICU clinician performance, perceptions regarding the use of these tools, and patient outcomes. Methods A literature search was conducted on February 9, 2023, using the EBSCO CINAHL, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Embase, IEEE Xplore, MEDLINE, Scopus, and Web of Science Core Collection databases. Eligible studies that included ICU clinicians as participants and tested the effect of dashboards designed for use by multiple users to manage multiple patients on user performance and/or satisfaction compared with the standard practice. We narratively synthesized eligible studies following the SWiM (Synthesis Without Meta-analysis) guidelines. Studies were grouped based on dashboard type and outcomes assessed. Results The search yielded a total of 2,407 studies. Five studies met inclusion criteria and were included. Among these, three studies evaluated interactive displays in the ICU, one study assessed two dashboards in the pediatric ICU (PICU), and one study examined centralized monitor in the PICU. Most studies reported several positive outcomes, including reductions in data gathering time before rounds, a decrease in misrepresentations during multidisciplinary rounds, improved daily documentation compliance, faster decision-making, and user satisfaction. One study did not report any significant association. Conclusion The multipatient dashboards were associated with improved ICU clinician performance and were positively perceived in most of the included studies. The risk of bias was high, and the certainty of evidence was very low, due to inconsistencies, imprecision, indirectness in the outcome measure, and methodological limitations. Designing and evaluating multipatient tools using robust research methodologies is an important focus for future research.

Pulmonary auscultation is essential for detecting abnormal lung sounds during physical assessments, but its reliability depends on the operator. Machine learning (ML) models offer an alternative by automatically classifying lung sounds. ML models require substantial data, and public databases aim to address this limitation. This systematic review compares characteristics, diagnostic accuracy, concerns, and data sources of existing models in the literature. Papers published from five major databases between 1990 and 2022 were assessed. Quality assessment was accomplished with a modified QUADAS-2 tool. The review encompassed 62 studies utilizing ML models and public-access databases for lung sound classification. Artificial neural networks (ANN) and support vector machines (SVM) were frequently employed in the ML classifiers. The accuracy ranged from 49.43% to 100% for discriminating abnormal sound types and 69.40% to 99.62% for disease class classification. Seventeen public databases were identified, with the ICBHI 2017 database being the most used (66%). The majority of studies exhibited a high risk of bias and concerns related to patient selection and reference standards. Summarizing, ML models can effectively classify abnormal lung sounds using publicly available data sources. Nevertheless, inconsistent reporting and methodologies pose limitations to advancing the field, and therefore, public databases should adhere to standardized recording and labeling procedures.