Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39703286›Full record

ArticleCureus2024

Evaluating the Impact of Artificial Intelligence (AI) on Clinical Documentation Efficiency and Accuracy Across Clinical Settings: A Scoping Review.

Craig Lee, Shawn Britto, Khaled Diwan

Abstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in Cureus, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 25 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
25citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

25 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. The Emerging Role of Artificial Intelligence in Cardiovascular Care: From Imaging to Predictive Analytics.Heart views : the official journal of the Gulf Heart Association · 2026
    Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Review
  19. Review
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Craig LeeGeneral Internal Medicine, University Hospitals Plymouth NHS Trust, Plymouth, GBR.
Shawn BrittoGeneral Internal Medicine, University Hospitals Plymouth NHS Trust, Plymouth, GBR.
Khaled DiwanGeneral Internal Medicine, University Hospitals Plymouth NHS Trust, Plymouth, GBR.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Artificial intelligence (AI) technologies (natural language processing (NLP), speech recognition (SR), and machine learning (ML)) can transform clinical documentation in healthcare. This scoping review evaluates the impact of AI on the accuracy and efficiency of clinical documentation across various clinical settings (hospital wards, emergency departments, and outpatient clinics). We found 176 articles by applying a specific search string on Ovid. To ensure a more comprehensive search process, we also performed manual searches on PubMed and BMJ, examining any relevant references we encountered. In this way, we were able to add 46 more articles, resulting in 222 articles in total. After removing duplicates, 208 articles were screened. This led to the inclusion of 36 studies. We were mostly interested in articles discussing the impact of AI technologies, such as NLP, ML, and SR, and their accuracy and efficiency in clinical documentation. To ensure that our research reflected recent work, we focused our efforts on studies published in 2019 and beyond. This criterion was pilot-tested beforehand and necessary adjustments were made. After comparing screened articles independently, we ensured inter-rater reliability (Cohen's kappa=1.0), and data extraction was completed on these 36 articles. We conducted this study according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. This scoping review shows improvements in clinical documentation using AI technologies, with an emphasis on accuracy and efficiency. There was a reduction in clinician workload, with the streamlining of the documentation processes. Subsequently, doctors also had more time for patient care. However, these articles also raised various challenges surrounding the use of AI in clinical settings. These challenges included the management of errors, legal liability, and integration of AI with electronic health records (EHRs). There were also some ethical concerns regarding the use of AI with patient data. AI shows massive potential for improving the day-to-day work life of doctors across various clinical settings. However, more research is needed to address the many challenges associated with its use. Studies demonstrate improved accuracy and efficiency in clinical documentation with the use of AI. With better regulatory frameworks, implementation, and research, AI can significantly reduce the burden placed on doctors by documentation.

Indexed as

ai and machine learningartificial intelligence in medicineelectronic health record (ehr)machine learning (ml)natural language programing (nlp)scoping reviewspeech recognitionward round

Identifiers

PMID39703286
PMCPMC11658896

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.