Background Artificial intelligence (AI) has shown promising results in various fields of medicine. It has the potential to facilitate shared decision making (SDM). However, there is no comprehensive mapping of how AI may be used for SDM. Objective We aimed to identify and evaluate published studies that have tested or implemented AI to facilitate SDM. Methods We performed a scoping review informed by the methodological framework proposed by Levac et al, modifications to the original Arksey and O'Malley framework of a scoping review, and the Joanna Briggs Institute scoping review framework. We reported our results based on the PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews) reporting guideline. At the identification stage, an information specialist performed a comprehensive search of 6 electronic databases from their inception to May 2021. The inclusion criteria were: all populations; all AI interventions that were used to facilitate SDM, and if the AI intervention was not used for the decision-making point in SDM, it was excluded; any outcome related to patients, health care providers, or health care systems; studies in any health care setting, only studies published in the English language, and all study types. Overall, 2 reviewers independently performed the study selection process and extracted data. Any disagreements were resolved by a third reviewer. A descriptive analysis was performed. Results The search process yielded 1445 records. After removing duplicates, 894 documents were screened, and 6 peer-reviewed publications met our inclusion criteria. Overall, 2 of them were conducted in North America, 2 in Europe, 1 in Australia, and 1 in Asia. Most articles were published after 2017. Overall, 3 articles focused on primary care, and 3 articles focused on secondary care. All studies used machine learning methods. Moreover, 3 articles included health care providers in the validation stage of the AI intervention, and 1 article included both health care providers and patients in clinical validation, but none of the articles included health care providers or patients in the design and development of the AI intervention. All used AI to support SDM by providing clinical recommendations or predictions. Conclusions Evidence of the use of AI in SDM is in its infancy. We found AI supporting SDM in similar ways across the included articles. We observed a lack of emphasis on patients’ values and preferences, as well as poor reporting of AI interventions, resulting in a lack of clarity about different aspects. Little effort was made to address the topics of explainability of AI interventions and to include end-users in the design and development of the interventions. Further efforts are required to strengthen and standardize the use of AI in different steps of SDM and to evaluate its impact on various decisions, populations, and settings.

Purpose The COVID-19 pandemic resulted in a partial to total shutdown of endoscopy in many healthcare centers. This study aims to quantify the impact of the reduction in colonoscopies on colorectal cancer (CRC) detection and screening . Methods After institutional ethics board approval, the endoscopy database at an academic tertiary-care center in Montreal, Canada, was searched for all colonoscopies performed from during the first wave locally (March–June 2020), and during the ramp up period where endoscopy service resumed (July to August 2020). We compared these periods to the same periods in 2019, the pre-pandemic periods. The indications, CRC and adenoma detection rates, as well as the prioritization of urgent procedures were compared. Results In the first wave, only 462 colonoscopies were performed, compared to 2515 in the same period in 2019, an 82% reduction. The ramp up period saw 843 colonoscopies performed compared to 1328 in 2019, a 35% reduction. Urgent and inpatient colonoscopies numbers increased (324 (24.8%) vs. 220 (5.7%)) while surveillance and high-risk screening colonoscopies fell (376 (28.8%) vs 1869 (48.6%)). Emergency access to colonoscopy was preserved with a median time to endoscopy of < 1 day (IQR 0,1) in both pandemic periods. During the pandemic periods, there was an absolute reduction in CRC diagnosis of 28, despite the CRC detection per colonoscopy rate increasing slightly in the first wave from 1.7% (44) to 3.9% (18), and in the ramp up period from 2.5% (33) to 3.6% (31). The rate of adenoma detection per colonoscopy did not increase significantly between the pre- and pandemic periods, resulting in reduction in adenoma removal in 723 patients. Discussion The restriction of access to colonoscopy resulted in a significant reduction in screening and surveillance of high-risk patients, adenomas removed, and CRCs diagnosed. Clinicians and patients will face the oncologic ramifications this the coming years. Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s00464-022-09211-z.

No abstract

No abstract