ReviewBioengineering (Basel, Switzerland)2025
Translating AI to the Bedside with Physician Buy-In: Recommendations from a Meta-Analysis and Systematic Review of the Literature.
Review in Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundArtificial intelligence (AI) is increasingly being used in healthcare. Despite its promise, physicians and trainees remain cautiously optimistic. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to assess knowledge and attitudes toward AI and to provide recommendations for AI buy-in by physicians.
methodsSearches of PubMed-OVID-IEEE-Scopus, and Web-of-Science for studies in 2013-2024 identified 11,437 records. One-hundred-and-fifteen met inclusion criteria. Fifty-three studies reported quantitative data on physicians'/trainees' knowledge and were included in the meta-analysis.
resultsOur meta-analysis estimated that only 19.6% of physicians and trainees have high overall AI knowledge, while 36.3% have low knowledge. Fifty-five studies evaluated the depth of AI knowledge. These studies consistently concluded that most physicians or trainees possess only moderate conceptual knowledge of AI, and their technical knowledge is usually limited. Qualitative evaluations also highlighted that a high level of conceptual AI knowledge is associated with greater receptiveness to AI implementation in medicine. We identified five major barriers to translating AI to the bedside with physician buy-in.
conclusionAlthough physicians and trainees are generally receptive to AI, many barriers hinder adoption. To address them, we recommend establishing standardized AI education and workforce training, involving clinicians early in AI design, clarifying legal and regulatory issues, leveraging insights from clinical decision support system implementation to reduce workflow challenges, and integrating patient-centered communication principles to enhance trust and transparency.
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.