ArticleInternational journal of retina and vitreous2025
Global perspectives of ophthalmologists on artificial intelligence adoption in clinical practice.
Article in International journal of retina and vitreous, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Code-free automated machine learning for OCT-based classification of vitreoretinal interface diseases.International journal of retina and vitreous · 2026Article
- Perceived Trust in Artificial Intelligence in Eye Care: Demographic Determinants and Variations in Attitudes Among Ophthalmologists and Residents.Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.) · 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
17 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundArtificial intelligence (AI) is rapidly expanding in ophthalmology, yet its adoption in daily practice remains limited. Understanding clinicians’ perspectives is essential to address barriers and guide targeted education.
methodsWe conducted a cross-sectional international survey of licensed ophthalmologists from 45 countries across all continents between October 2024 and February 2025. The questionnaire evaluated AI familiarity and use as primary outcomes, as well as perceived clinical impact, ethical concerns, and training preferences of participants. Descriptive and comparative analyses were conducted across world region, practice type, and professional seniority.
resultsA total of 622 ophthalmologists completed the survey. While 69.5% anticipated a moderate-to-very potential for AI to improve clinical outcomes, only 7.2% reported regular use. Familiarity with AI was significantly higher among academic clinicians (p = 0.0011), whereas 49.6% reported no knowledge of specific AI tools. Key barriers included lack of training (20.5%), implementation costs (16.5%), and reliability concerns (12.9%). Ethical issues most frequently cited were algorithmic bias (44.2%), liability (36.7%), and reduced physician–patient interaction (19.9%). Ophthalmologists with > 20 years of experience were more likely to support AI adoption (OR 1.5). Interest in AI education was high (75.1%), with a preference for online and structured formats and calls for earlier integration into medical curricula.
conclusionsDespite broad recognition of AI’s potential in ophthalmology, adoption remains low and familiarity limited. Lack of training, cost, and ethical concerns represent key barriers. Tailored, accessible education and institutional support are urgently needed to facilitate safe and effective AI integration into clinical practice.
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.