ArticleJournal of clinical medicine2023
Attitudes of Anesthesiologists toward Artificial Intelligence in Anesthesia: A Multicenter, Mixed Qualitative-Quantitative Study.
Article in Journal of clinical medicine, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 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
14 citing papers in PubMed.
- Perceptions on artificial intelligence among anaesthesia and intensive care professionals: An international survey on attitudes, expectations and needs.Journal of clinical monitoring and computing · 2026Article
- Ethical readiness and trust in artificial intelligence-assisted anaesthesia: A cross-sectional survey study among anaesthesia professionals in India.Indian journal of anaesthesia · 2026Article
- Article
- Anaesthesia professionals' perspectives on ECG interpretation and arrhythmia situation awareness with Visual Patient Heart: a qualitative multicentre study.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2026Article
- Conversational artificial intelligence in the operating room: an exploratory cross-sectional single-center survey among anesthesiology residents.BMC anesthesiology · 2026Observational
- Generative AI in simulation debriefings: an exploratory study using the Team-FIRST framework and qualitative feedback from simulation experts and learners.Advances in simulation (London, England) · 2026Article
- Translating AI to the Bedside with Physician Buy-In: Recommendations from a Meta-Analysis and Systematic Review of the Literature.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Barriers to and facilitators of clinician acceptance and use of artificial intelligence in healthcare settings: a scoping review.BMJ open · 2025Article
- Reshaping Anesthesia with Artificial Intelligence: From Concept to Reality.Anesthesia and critical care (Houston, Tex.) · 2025Article
- Perspectives toward the application of Artificial Intelligence in anesthesiology-related practices in Saudi Arabia: A cross-sectional study of physicians views.Health science reports · 2024Article
- Artificial Intelligence in Perioperative Care: Opportunities and Challenges.Anesthesiology · 2024Article
- Attitudes and perceptions of Chinese oncologists towards artificial intelligence in healthcare: a cross-sectional survey.Frontiers in digital health · 2024Article
- Artificial intelligence and telemedicine in the field of anaesthesiology, intensive care and pain medicine: A European survey.European journal of anaesthesiology and intensive care · 2023Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Artificial intelligence (AI) is predicted to play an increasingly important role in perioperative medicine in the very near future. However, little is known about what anesthesiologists know and think about AI in this context. This is important because the successful introduction of new technologies depends on the understanding and cooperation of end users. We sought to investigate how much anesthesiologists know about AI and what they think about the introduction of AI-based technologies into the clinical setting. In order to better understand what anesthesiologists think of AI, we recruited 21 anesthesiologists from 2 university hospitals for face-to-face structured interviews. The interview transcripts were subdivided sentence-by-sentence into discrete statements, and statements were then grouped into key themes. Subsequently, a survey of closed questions based on these themes was sent to 70 anesthesiologists from 3 university hospitals for rating. In the interviews, the base level of knowledge of AI was good at 86 of 90 statements (96%), although awareness of the potential applications of AI in anesthesia was poor at only 7 of 42 statements (17%). Regarding the implementation of AI in anesthesia, statements were split roughly evenly between pros (46 of 105, 44%) and cons (59 of 105, 56%). Interviewees considered that AI could usefully be used in diverse tasks such as risk stratification, the prediction of vital sign changes, or as a treatment guide. The validity of these themes was probed in a follow-up survey of 70 anesthesiologists with a response rate of 70%, which confirmed an overall positive view of AI in this group. Anesthesiologists hold a range of opinions, both positive and negative, regarding the application of AI in their field of work. Survey-based studies do not always uncover the full breadth of nuance of opinion amongst clinicians. Engagement with specific concerns, both technical and ethical, will prove important as this technology moves from research to the clinic.
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.