ArticleAnnals of medicine and surgery (2012)2020
Automatic speech recognition in the operating room - An essential contemporary tool or a redundant gadget? A survey evaluation among physicians in form of a qualitative study.
Article in Annals of medicine and surgery (2012), 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Artificial Intelligence in Prehospital Tele-Emergency Medicine: A Survey of Acceptance and Attitudes.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- ReflectOR: an LLM-based Agent for Post-Operative Surgical Debriefing.... International Workshop on Spoken Dialogue Systems Technology. International Workshop on Spoken Dialogue Systems Technology · 2026Article
- Speech-mediated manipulation of da Vinci surgical system for continuous surgical flow.Biomedical engineering letters · 2025Article
- Revolutionizing Radiological Analysis: The Future of French Language Automatic Speech Recognition in Healthcare.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Intelligent speech technologies for transcription, disease diagnosis, and medical equipment interactive control in smart hospitals: A review.Computers in biology and medicine · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionFor decades, automatic speech recognition (ASR) has been the subject of research and its range of applications broadened. Presently, ASR among physicians is mainly used to convert speech into text but not to implement instructions in the operating room (OR). This study aimed to evaluate physicians of different surgical professions on their personal experience and posture towards ASR.
methodsA 16-item survey was distributed electronically to hospitals and outpatient clinics in southern Germany addressing physicians on the potential applications of ASR in the OR.
resultsThe survey was responded by 185 of 2693 physicians (response rate: 6.9%) with a mean age of 41.8 ± 9.8 years. ASR is desirable in the OR regardless of the field of speciality (93.7%). While only 2.7% have used ASR, 87.9% evaluate its future potential as high. 91.0% of those working in a university hospital would consider testing ASR, while 67.5% of those in non-university hospitals and practices (p = 0.001). 90.1% of responders of strictly surgical specialities see potential in ASR while 73.7% in non-surgical specialities evaluate its future potential as high (p = 0.01). 58.3% of those over the age of 60 consider the use of ASR without a headset to be imaginable, while 96.3% among those under the age of 60. There were no statistically significant differences regarding sex and professional position.
conclusionForeseeably, ASR is anticipated to be integrated into ORs and valued at a high market potential. Our study provides information about physicians' individual preferences from various surgical disciplines regarding ASR.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.