ArticleJournal of otology2025
Use of artificial intelligence tools by audiologists and speech-language therapists: an international survey of academicians.
Article in Journal of otology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Perspectives of audiologists in China on artificial intelligence in clinical practice and professional identity: a qualitative study.BMC medical education · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: Artificial intelligence (AI) is developing across the world in every domain, such as finance, manufacturing, entertainment, agriculture, retail, healthcare, and law. Its use in the education sector has exponentially increased. The present global survey explored the utilization of AI among academicians in audiology and speech-language therapy (ASLT) and their willingness to use AI tools in their academic work. Method: This study used a cross-sectional survey design. One hundred and six ASLT academicians participated in the survey (February 2024 to April 2024). The questionnaire contains 18 items, which included a five-point rating scale, yes-no, and open-ended questions. Descriptive statistics were used for analysis. Results: Most of the participants were from Asia and North America, followed by Africa. Nearly sixty-eight percent of the academicians used AI tools in their practice. The major concerns reported by the participants were the authenticity of the data, security, the addition of irrelevant information, and incorrect citations. The participants also mentioned that the frequent use of AI tools can reduce a person's ability to devise novel ideas. AI tools such as ChatGPT, Canva, Grammarly AI, Mentimeter, QuillBot, ResearchRabbit, and Scribd were reported by participants. Conclusions: The present study highlights the use of AI tools among ASLT academicians. However, only a few academicians have prior experience in AI courses. This indicates the pressing need for training concerning the appropriate use of AI in academia and support from universities. Furthermore, AI should be incorporated into academia with appropriate monitoring and ethical considerations.
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.