ReviewFuture healthcare journal2024
Quality of interaction between clinicians and artificial intelligence systems. A systematic review.
Review in Future healthcare journal, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers, 3 of them syntheses 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
16 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Barriers and facilitators to the implementation and adoption of computerised clinical decision support systems: an overview of reviews.Systematic reviews · 2026Pooled it
- Patient Concerns Regarding Artificial Intelligence Applications in Health Care: Systematic Review and Meta-Synthesis Based on Social Ecological Theory.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Pooled it
- Trust in Artificial Intelligence-Based Clinical Decision Support Systems Among Health Care Workers: Systematic Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2025Pooled it
- Identifying factors influencing acceptance of artificial intelligence among general practitioners in Danish general practice: a cross-sectional web-based survey study.Scandinavian journal of primary health care · 2026Article
- The productivity illusion: performance measurement and the invisibility of digital clinical work.Future healthcare journal · 2026Article
- Perioperative Risk Stratification with AI-Powered Chatbots: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- Evaluating an AI Decision Support System for the Emergency Department: Retrospective Study.JMIR AI · 2026Article
- The unintended negative consequences of artificial intelligence use for psychologists.Frontiers in psychology · 2026Article
- Is accuracy enough? trust and barriers to AI-based clinical decision support in clinical neurophysiology.Clinical neurophysiology practice · 2026Article
- The Use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) to Support Dietetic Practice Across Primary Care: A Scoping Review of the Literature.Nutrients · 2025Article
- The PERFORM Study: Artificial Intelligence Versus Human Residents in Cross-Sectional Obstetrics-Gynecology Scenarios Across Languages and Time Constraints.Mayo Clinic proceedings. Digital health · 2025Article
- Revolutionising osseous biopsy: the impact of artificial intelligence in the era of personalized medicine.The British journal of radiology · 2025Review
- Neonatal nurses' experiences with generative AI in clinical decision-making: a qualitative exploration in high-risk nicus.BMC nursing · 2025Article
- Opinion: Mental health research: to augment or not to augment.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2025Article
- Diagnostics and Therapy for Malignant Tumors.Biomedicines · 2024Review
- Artificial intelligence: friend or foe?Future healthcare journal · 2024Article
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
Introduction: Artificial intelligence (AI) has the potential to improve healthcare quality when thoughtfully integrated into clinical practice. Current evaluations of AI solutions tend to focus solely on model performance. There is a critical knowledge gap in the assessment of AI-clinician interactions. We systematically reviewed existing literature to identify interaction traits that can be used to assess the quality of AI-clinician interactions. Methods: We performed a systematic review of published studies to June 2022 that reported elements of interactions that impacted the relationship between clinicians and AI-enabled clinical decision support systems. Due to study heterogeneity, we conducted a narrative synthesis of the different interaction traits identified from this review. Two study authors categorised the AI-clinician interaction traits based on their shared constructs independently. After the independent categorisation, both authors engaged in a discussion to finalise the categories. Results: From 34 included studies, we identified 210 interaction traits. The most common interaction traits included usefulness, ease of use, trust, satisfaction, willingness to use and usability. After removing duplicate or redundant traits, 90 unique interaction traits were identified. Unique interaction traits were then classified into seven categories: usability and user experience, system performance, clinician trust and acceptance, impact on patient care, communication, ethical and professional concerns, and clinician engagement and workflow. Discussion: We identified seven categories of interaction traits between clinicians and AI systems. The proposed categories may serve as a foundation for a framework assessing the quality of AI-clinician interactions.
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.