Application of Artificial Intelligence in Advanced Training and Education of Emergency Medicine Doctors: A Narrative Review

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I thank the authors for the opportunity I have had to read this interesting paper and I congratulate them for the work they have done.

Given that a narrative review is being carried out, a table should be prepared with the results of the search carried out by the authors and the references used (first surname of the author, year of publication, type of publication, and synthesis of key points of the paper).

The authors mention the search terms used in the abstract, however they do not mention them in the material and methods section. Everything mentioned in the abstract must be reflected in the body section of the paper.

The authors indicate that tools were used to evaluate the quality and methodological rigor. These are not described in the text. The authors must explain what tools they used and prepare a table with the references analyzed and the score or evaluation offered by those tools.

The paragraph that the authors make about the limitations of the study that is included in the materials and methods section should be eliminated from this section and included in the limitations of the discussion.

In table 2, the complete reference from the footer of the table could be eliminated, changing it to the reference number (13) in its title.

In point 4.7 of the discussion it is advisable to eliminate (p<0.05) and indicate that the performance improvement was statistically significant. The authors could have chosen a significance other than 0.05 (example: p<0.01).

I do not agree with the phrase on line 316. As of today, there is still not enough evidence to formulate this phrase and replace the advanced and basic cardiac life support courses with VR.

Points 6, 7, 8 and 9 must be integrated into the discussion or appear as subsections of it.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript " Application of Artificial Intelligence in Advanced Training and Education of Emergency Medicine in training doctors: A Narrative Review" aims to discuss the potential of Artificial intelligence (AI) in transforming emergency medicine (EM) training and highlight the specific applications of AI in personalized learning, realistic simulations, data-driven decision support, and adaptive assessment along with further exploring the benefits and challenges of AI-powered EM training. This narrative review is potentially interesting because Artificial intelligence can impact several points of emergency medicine. Based on the recommendation of the journal about the criteria for publication this study can considered as incremental work because it is limited in novelties or outstanding analysis.  Although the topic is very relevant to the journal there are some limitations or weaknesses as described below:

1.    In the abstract is not clear the inclusion of terms Realistic Simulations; Data-Driven Decision Support and Adaptive Assessment as subtitles.

2.    In the Methodology- Literature search, please include the exactly words used in the search for PubMed, Scopus, Google Scholar and Web of Science.

3.    Based on the data extraction sub-title, it appears interesting include a new table with: including study characteristics, AI technologies employed, study design, sample size, outcomes, and key findings of the selected studies.

4.    In Quality assessment, please provide the procedure to evaluate the quality assessment and also include a reference for appropriated tools used here. Which parameters were used to characterize a high methodological quality to include article in the final analysis.  

5.    Please, provide references for data analysis and interpretation, ethical consideration and limitations. Besides, it is important you insert information in the manuscripts for all analysis informed in the material and methods sections.

6.    Please, including one or two figures summarizing the most relevant parts of this literature review could facilitate the comprehension of the text.

7.     I suggest minimizing the inclusion of authors' surnames within the text and instead use numeric citations according to the journal's guidelines.

8.     In several sections, some paragraphs consist of only one sentence rather than forming cohesive paragraphs with a central theme.

 

9.    The sections on perspectives should address broader issues and not rely on a single reference for describing a very limited analysis. In my view, the section on study limitations is inappropriate. For example, stating that conducting a narrative review is a limitation is incorrect. Performing a narrative review itself is not a limitation, and other points raised in this paragraph also seem inappropriate.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

As described previously.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I thank the authors for making the changes suggested by the reviewer.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This narrative review presents an analysis of average quality, which can provide a moderate broader perspective. However, the analysis appears to be conducted in an organized manner following an active search in this field of study.The manuscript was improved in the second version and the limitations were properly described in the manuscript. An review of edition of paragraphs and spaces inside the tables should be performed by the editorial team. 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

As previously described.