RESUMO
Artificial intelligence (AI) is a rapidly advancing technology that has the potential to revolutionize medical education. AI can provide personalized learning experiences, assist with student assessment, and aid in the integration of pre-clinical and clinical curricula. Despite the potential benefits, there is a paucity of literature investigating the use of AI in undergraduate medical education. This study aims to evaluate the role of AI in undergraduate medical curricula worldwide and compare AI to current teaching and assessment methods. This systematic review was conducted using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) reporting guidelines. Texts unavailable in English were excluded alongside those not focused on medical students alone or with little mention of AI. The key search terms were "undergraduate medical education," "medical students," "medical education," and "artificial intelligence." The methodological rigor of each study was assessed using the Medical Education Research Study Quality Instrument (MERSQI). A total of 36 articles were screened from 700 initial articles, of which 11 were deemed eligible. These were categorized into the following three domains: teaching (n = 6), assessing (n = 3), and trend spotting (n = 2). AI was shown to be highly accurate in studies that directly tested its ability. The mean overall MERSQI score for all selected papers was 10.5 (standard deviation = 2.3; range = 6 to 15.5) falling below the expected score of 10.7 due to notable weaknesses in study design, sampling methods, and study outcomes. AI performance was synergized with human involvement suggesting that AI would be best employed as a supplement to undergraduate medical curricula. Studies directly comparing AI to current teaching methods demonstrated favorable performance. While shown to have a promising role, there remains a limited number of studies in the field, and further research is needed to refine and establish clear foundations to assist in its development.
RESUMO
Lateral compression type 1 (LC1) injuries comprise two-thirds of pelvic fractures. Approximately one-third of LC1 fractures are unstable and may benefit from surgical fixation to improve stability but it is not clear if this leads to better clinical or cost-effectiveness outcomes. This study explores differences in patient-reported outcomes, complications, time-to-mobilisation, cost-effectiveness, and length of hospital stay between surgically and non-surgically treated unstable LC1 non-fragility fractures. We performed a systematic review to determine whether surgical or non-surgical treatment yielded better clinical and cost-effectiveness outcomes for the treatment of unstable LC1 pelvic injuries with complete sacral fractures, excluding fragility fractures. We searched Medline, Embase and Cochrane databases from inception to June 2022, as well as clinical trial registries. A formal meta-analysis was not possible due to available study designs and heterogeneity. Therefore, a narrative review of the findings has been provided. Five observational studies met the inclusion criteria. A total of 183 patients were treated surgically, and 314 patients were treated non-surgically. Patients treated surgically had lower pain levels (Visual Analogue Scale) and fewer days to mobilisation. Quality of life (EuroQol-5 domains and 36-Item Short Form questionnaires) was better in the surgical group, but not statistically significant. No statistical differences in the length of hospital stay or complication rates were found. This review highlights the low quantity and quality of existing data on patients with unstable LC1 pelvic fractures and the need for a definitive randomised controlled trial to determine whether surgical or non-surgical care should be the preferred treatment concerning clinical and cost-effective care.
RESUMO
PURPOSE: Tranexamic acid (TXA) is an inexpensive antifibrinolytic agent that significantly reduces peri-operative blood loss and transfusion requirements after total hip and knee replacement. This meta-analysis demonstrates the effects of TXA on blood loss in total shoulder replacement (TSR) and total elbow replacement (TER). METHODS: We systematically searched MEDLINE, EMBASE and CENTRAL from inception to September 03, 2020 for randomised controlled trial (RCTs) and observational studies. Our primary outcome was blood loss. Secondary outcomes included the need for blood transfusion, and post-operative venous thromboembolic (VTE) complications. Mean differences (MD) and relative risks with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were reported. RESULTS: Four RCTs and five retrospective cohort studies (RCS) met eligibility criteria for TSRs, but none for TERs. RCT data determined that TXA administration significantly decreased estimated total blood loss (MD -358mL), post-operative blood loss (MD -113mL), change in haemoglobin (Hb) (MD -0.71 g/dL) and total Hb loss (MD -35.3g) when compared to placebo. RCS data demonstrated significant association between TXA administration and decreased in post-operative blood loss, change in Hb, change in Hct and length of stay. There was no significant difference in transfusion requirements or VTE complications. CONCLUSION: TXA administration in safe and effective in patients undergoing primary TSR: it significantly decreases blood loss compared with placebo and is associated with shorter length of stay compared with no treatment. No significant increase in VTE complications was found. TXA administration should be routinely considered for patients undergoing TSR. Further research is needed to demonstrate the treatment effect in patients undergoing TER.
