SynthesisFrontiers in public health2025
Impact of artificial intelligence on electronic health record-related burnouts among healthcare professionals: systematic review.
Synthesis in Frontiers in public health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 2 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
13 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Adoption of artificial intelligence in primary health care: systematic synthesis of stakeholder perspectives.BMC primary care · 2026Pooled it
- Digital compassion fatigue and digital empathy in healthcare: mapping the evidence and informing a human-centered clinical framework.Frontiers in psychology · 2026Pooled it
- The Promise of Ambient AI Technology in Medical Education: Opportunities and Guardrails.JMIR medical informatics · 2026Article
- The global surgical workforce crisis: narrative review of the role of surgical educator development and technological innovations.Surgery today · 2026Review
- Innovation in intensive care: a new perspective.Intensive care medicine · 2026Article
- Assessing pediatric gastroenterologists' use of artificial intelligence in clinical and professional tasks.JPGN reports · 2026Article
- Artificial Intelligence and Clinician Burnout in the United States: A Narrative Review.Cureus · 2026Review
- Evaluating Medical Students' Perceptions of AI-Assisted Clinical Documentation (CarePilot): Cross-Sectional Study.JMIR AI · 2026Article
- Article
- Large Language Models for Clinical Narrative Processing: Methods, Applications, and Challenges.Methods and protocols · 2026Article
- A Blueprint for Partnership between AI and MD.Delaware journal of public health · 2026Article
- Systematic investigation of pre-processing and feature extraction techniques in medical image analysis.Discover artificial intelligence · 2026Article
- Artificial Intelligence in Neurology: Assessing the Diagnostic and Therapeutic Reasoning of Large Language Models.Cureus · 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: The implementation of electronic health records (EHRs) has revolutionized modern clinical practice, increasing efficiency, accessibility, and quality of care. Nevertheless, EHR-related workload has been considered as a significant contributor to healthcare professionals' burnout, a syndrome associated with emotional exhaustion, depersonalization, and reduced personal accomplishment. As modern health system explores technological solutions, artificial intelligence (AI) has gained attention for its potential to facilitate documentation processes and alleviate cognitive burden. This systematic review aims to explore and understand the impact of artificial intelligence on burnout associated with electronic health records among healthcare professionals. Methods: A systematic literature review was conducted following the PRISMA 2020 guidelines. Relevant studies published between 2019 and 2025 were retrieved from three electronic databases: PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science. The search strategy included three main domains: artificial intelligence, electronic health records, and healthcare professional burnout. Eligible included studies are peer-reviewed original research articles that evaluated the impact of AI-based technologies on burnout among healthcare professionals. The screening and selection processes were carried out by following the PRISMA framework. Methodological quality assessment of the included studies was performed using the Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal Tools. Results: Of the 287 records initially identified, eight studies met the inclusion criteria. The majority of identified studies were conducted in the United States and Canada. The identified interventions were categorized into four domains: ambient artificial intelligence scribes, clinical decision support systems, large language models, and natural language processing tools. Most studies focused on mitigating documentation or inbox-related burdens and reported positive outcomes, including decreased documentation time, enhanced workflow efficiency, and reduced symptoms of burnout among healthcare professionals. Nonetheless, several methodological limitations were observed, including the absence of control groups, small sample sizes, and short follow-up periods, which constrain the generalizability of the findings. Discussion: The integration of artificial intelligence into electronic health record systems may have potential to alleviate documentation burden and inbox management burden. Although preliminary findings are promising, further methodologically robust research is necessary to evaluate long-term outcomes, assess usability across diverse clinical contexts, and ensure the safe and effective implementation of AI technologies in routine healthcare practice. Systematic review registration: https://osf.io/pevfj.
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.