Artificial intelligence-based tools to control healthcare associated infections: A systematic review of the literature. Issue 8 (August 2020)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Scardoni, Alessandro; Balzarini, Federica; Signorelli, Carlo; Cabitza, Federico; Odone, Anna
• Is Part Of: Journal of infection and public health. Volume 13:Issue 8(2020)
• Page Start: 1061
• Page End: 1077
• Publication Date: 2020-08
• Subjects: Artificial intelligence -- Machine learning -- Healthcare-associated infections (HAI) -- Infection control -- Systematic review; Communicable diseases -- Periodicals; Public health -- Periodicals; Epidemiology -- Periodicals; Nosocomial infections -- Prevention -- Periodicals; Medical microbiology -- Periodicals; 614.4
• DOI: 10.1016/j.jiph.2020.06.006
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1876-0341

Abstract

Abstract: Background: Healthcare-associated infections (HAIs) are the most frequent adverse events in healthcare and a global public health concern. Surveillance is the foundation for effective HAIs prevention and control. Manual surveillance is labor intensive, costly and lacks standardization. Artificial Intelligence (AI) and machine learning (ML) might support the development of HAI surveillance algorithms aimed at understanding HAIs risk factors, improve patient risk stratification, identification of transmission pathways, timely or real-time detection. Scant evidence is available on AI and ML implementation in the field of HAIs and no clear patterns emerges on its impact. Methods: We conducted a systematic review following the PRISMA guidelines to systematically retrieve, quantitatively pool and critically appraise the available evidence on the development, implementation, performance and impact of ML-based HAIs detection models. Results: Of 3445 identified citations, 27 studies were included in the review, the majority published in the US ( n = 15, 55.6%) and on surgical site infections (SSI, n = 8, 29.6%). Only 1 randomized controlled trial was included. Within included studies, 17 (63%) ML approaches were classified as predictive and 10 (37%) as retrospective. Most of the studies compared ML algorithms' performance with non-ML logistic regression statistical algorithms, 18.5% compared different ML models' performance, 11.1% assessed ML algorithms' performance in comparison with clinical diagnosis scores, 11.1% with standard or automated surveillance models. Overall, there is moderate evidence that ML-based models perform equal or better as compared to non-ML approaches and that they reach relatively high-performance standards. However, heterogeneity amongst the studies is very high and did not dissipate significantly in subgroup analyses, by type of infection or type of outcome. Discussion: Available evidence mainly focuses on the development and testing of HAIs detection and prediction models, while their adoption and impact for research, healthcare quality improvement, or national surveillance purposes is still far from being explored.