SynthesisBMJ health & care informatics2024
Perioperative application of chatbots: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in BMJ health & care informatics, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 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
11 citing papers in PubMed.
- Are Arthroplasty Patients Ready for Artificial Intelligence-Integrated Care?Arthroplasty today · 2026Article
- Applying Large Language Models in Perioperative Medicine With an Equity-Informed Perspective.Anesthesia and analgesia · 2026Article
- Perioperative Risk Stratification with AI-Powered Chatbots: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- Transforming perioperative care: The current landscape and future trajectory of artificial intelligence in anesthesia-A narrative review.The Journal of international medical research · 2026Review
- Conversational artificial intelligence in the operating room: an exploratory cross-sectional single-center survey among anesthesiology residents.BMC anesthesiology · 2026Observational
- Digital health interventions for perioperative patient-reported outcomes: a network meta-analysis.NPJ digital medicine · 2026Article
- Interest in patient navigation chatbots: a cross-sectional survey study.Frontiers in digital health · 2026Article
- Specialised Competencies and Artificial Intelligence in Perioperative Care: Contributions Toward Safer Practice.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Large language models in nephrology: applications and challenges in chronic kidney disease management.Renal failure · 2025Review
- Artificial Intelligence Chatbots in Surgical Care: A Systematic Review of Clinical Applications.Journal of artificial intelligence for medical sciences · 2025Article
- Blinded evaluation of GPT-4 and physician responses to patient inquiries across multiple specialties.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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
objectivesPatient-clinician communication and shared decision-making face challenges in the perioperative period. Chatbots have emerged as valuable support tools in perioperative care. A simultaneous and complete comparison of overall benefits and harm of chatbot application is conducted. MATERIALS: MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane Library were systematically searched for studies published before May 2023 on the benefits and harm of chatbots used in the perioperative period. The major outcomes assessed were patient satisfaction and knowledge acquisition. Untransformed proportion (PR) with a 95% CI was used for the analysis of continuous data. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias assessment tool version 2 and the Methodological Index for Non-Randomised Studies.
resultsEight trials comprising 1073 adults from four countries were included. Most interventions (n = 5, 62.5%) targeted perioperative care in orthopaedics. Most interventions use rule-based chatbots (n = 7, 87.5%). This meta-analysis found that the majority of the participants were satisfied with the use of chatbots (mean proportion=0.73; 95% CI: 0.62 to 0.85), and agreed that they gained knowledge in their perioperative period (mean proportion=0.80; 95% CI: 0.74 to 0.87).
conclusionThis review demonstrates that perioperative chatbots are well received by the majority of patients with no reports of harm to-date. Chatbots may be considered as an aid in perioperative communication between patients and clinicians and shared decision-making. These findings may be used to guide the healthcare providers, policymakers and researchers for enhancing perioperative care.
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.