ArticleLaryngoscope investigative otolaryngology2023
Physician views of artificial intelligence in otolaryngology and rhinology: A mixed methods study.
Article in Laryngoscope investigative otolaryngology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 21 citations in OpenAlex.
- Healthcare professionals' perspectives on artificial intelligence in patient care: a systematic review of hindering and facilitating factors on different levels.BMC health services research · 2025Pooled it
- Can ChatGPT-5 educate the public about vasectomy?: a Google Trends-based expert panel assessment.Frontiers in digital health · 2026Article
- Digital health technologies in swallowing care from screening to rehabilitation: A narrative review.Auris, nasus, larynx · 2025Review
- Exploring trust factors in AI-healthcare integration: a rapid review.Frontiers in artificial intelligence · 2025Review
- Auditory and Psychological Impacts of Tympanoplasty in Chronic Suppurative Otitis Media Patients: A Mixed-Methods Study.Indian journal of otolaryngology and head and neck surgery : official publication of the Association of Otolaryngologists of India · 2024Article
- Autonomous Robotic Systems in Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery.Otolaryngologic clinics of North America · 2024Review
- Article
- Evaluating the understanding of the ethical and moral challenges of Big Data and AI among Jordanian medical students, physicians in training, and senior practitioners: a cross-sectional study.BMC medical ethics · 2024Article
- Physician views of artificial intelligence in otolaryngology and rhinology: A mixed methods study.Laryngoscope investigative otolaryngology · 2023Article
- Article
- AI support in prehospital telemedicine: Perspectives of tele-emergency physicians and ethical considerations.Digital healthArticle
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 at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: The study aimed to investigate otolaryngologists' knowledge, trust, acceptance, and concerns with clinical applications of artificial intelligence (AI). Methods: This study used mixed methods with survey and semistructured interviews. Survey was e-mailed to American Rhinologic Society members, of which a volunteer sample of 86 members responded. Nineteen otolaryngologists were purposefully recruited and interviewed until thematic saturation was achieved. Results: Seventy-six respondents (10% response rate) completed the majority of the survey: 49% worked in academic settings and 43% completed residency 10 or fewer years ago. Of 19 interviewees, 58% worked in academic settings, and 47% completed residency 10 or fewer years ago. Conclusion: Few physicians have experience with AI technologies but expect rapid adoption in the clinic, highlighting the urgent need for clinical education and research. Otolaryngologists are most receptive to AI "augmenting" physician expertise and administrative capacity, with respect for physician autonomy and maintaining relationships with patients. Level of Evidence: Level VI, descriptive or qualitative study.
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.