Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40514441›Full record

ReviewEye (London, England)2025

The acceptance of ophthalmic artificial intelligence for eye diseases: a literature review and qualitative analysis.

An Ran Ran, Chun Ho Lui, Yih-Chung Tham, Ching-Yu Cheng, Chiu Yu Lam, Wai Lam Cheung, Siu Ting Chan, Hok Ngai Ma, Raphael Walter L C Chow, Dawei Yang and 4 more

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Eye (London, England), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

14 authors.

An Ran Ran *Department of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong SAR, China.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4592-4867
Chun Ho Lui *Faculty of Medicine, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong SAR, China.
Yih-Chung ThamYong Loo Lin School of Medicine, National University of Singapore, Singapore, Singapore.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6752-797X
Ching-Yu ChengYong Loo Lin School of Medicine, National University of Singapore, Singapore, Singapore.
Chiu Yu LamFaculty of Medicine, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong SAR, China.
Wai Lam CheungFaculty of Medicine, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong SAR, China.
Siu Ting ChanFaculty of Medicine, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong SAR, China.
Hok Ngai MaFaculty of Medicine, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong SAR, China.
Raphael Walter L C ChowFaculty of Medicine, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong SAR, China.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0009-5877-3114
Dawei YangDepartment of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong SAR, China.
Ziqi TangDepartment of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong SAR, China.
T Y Alvin LiuWilmer Eye Institute, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, USA.
Clement C ThamDepartment of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong SAR, China.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4407-6907
Carol Y CheungDepartment of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong SAR, China. carolcheung@cuhk.edu.hk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9672-1819

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Thorough investigations of end-users' awareness, acceptance, and concerns about ophthalmic artificial intelligence (AI) are essential to ensure its successful implementation. We conducted a literature review on the acceptance of ophthalmic AI to provide an overall insight and qualitatively analysed the quality of eligible studies using a psychological model. We identified sixteen studies and evaluated these studies based on four primary factors (i.e., performance expectancy, effort expectancy, social influence, and facilitating conditions) and four regulating factors (i.e., gender, age, experiences, and voluntariness of use) of the psychological model. We found that most of the eligible studies only emphasized performance expectancy and effort expectancy, and in-depth discussions on the effects of social influence, facilitating conditions, and relevant regulating factors were relatively inadequate. The overall acceptance of ophthalmic AI among specific groups, such as patients with different eye diseases, experts in ophthalmology, professionals in other fields, and the general population, is high. Nevertheless, more well-designed qualitative studies with clear definitions of acceptance and using proper psychological models with larger sample sizes involving other representative and multidisciplinary stakeholders worldwide are still warranted. In addition, because of the multifarious concerns of AI, such as the economic burden, patient privacy, model safety, model trustworthiness, public awareness, and proper regulations over accountability issues, it is imperative to focus on evidence-based medicine, conduct high-quality randomized controlled trials, and promote patient education. Comprehensive clinician training, privacy-preserving technologies, and the issue of cost-effectiveness are also indispensable to address the above concerns and further propel the overall acceptance of ophthalmic AI.

Indexed as

Artificial IntelligenceEye DiseasesOphthalmologyPatient Acceptance of Health CareHumansQualitative Research

Identifiers

PMID40514441
PMCPMC12325719

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.