ReviewKlinische Monatsblatter fur Augenheilkunde2025
Stakeholder Attitudes on AI Integration in Ophthalmology.
Review in Klinische Monatsblatter fur Augenheilkunde, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Artificial intelligence in clinical genetics: Current practice and attitudes among the clinical genetics workforce.Genetics in medicine : official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics · 2026Article
- Me, my doctor and AI: a qualitative interview study on patients' requirements for trustworthy use of AI-CDSS in ophthalmology.BMJ digital health & AI · 2026Article
- Sociotechnical influences on the adoption and use of AI-enabled clinical decision support systems in ophthalmology: a theory-based interview study.BMC health services research · 2025Article
- Current status and solutions for AI ethics in ophthalmology: a bibliometric analysis.NPJ digital medicine · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Artificial intelligence (AI) is gaining widespread traction in ophthalmology, with multiple screening and diagnostic tools already being approved by U. S. and EU authorities. However, the adoption of these tools among medical professionals and their acceptance among patients is still questionable. This narrative review analyses the current literature on stakeholder perspectives on the integration of AI in ophthalmology, with a focus on comparing views across different global healthcare contexts. A PubMed search was conducted for original research articles published between January 1, 2015 and August 31, 2024. The analysis revealed different levels of acceptance for different AI applications among different stakeholder groups. Ophthalmologists and optometrists generally showed positive attitudes toward AI as an adjunct tool, while patients expressed mixed views, appreciating potential benefits while expressing concerns about a lack of transparency in the integration of AI into healthcare. This review reveals a complex landscape of stakeholder perspectives on AI in ophthalmology, highlighting the need for tailored approaches to AI implementation that address specific concerns and consider different healthcare contexts. The findings underscore the importance of collaborative efforts to develop context-specific, effective AI solutions in ophthalmology.
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.