ArticleJournal of medical systems2026
The Current State of Digital Scribes in Primary Care: A Scoping Review.
Article in Journal of medical systems, 2026. 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.
- Thinking critically about AI documentation quality in primary care.BMJ quality & safety · 2026Article
- The MediVoice implementation journey: ambient artificial intelligence for clinical documentation.Frontiers in digital health · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The purpose of this scoping review is to explore the current state of digital scribe technology in primary care, focusing on how automatic speech recognition (ASR) and natural language processing (NLP), which are foundational technologies behind artificial intelligence (AI) systems used in digital scribes contribute to their effectiveness, integration, and adoption. The Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) guidelines for scoping reviews was utilized alongside reporting according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews. Searches through PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, and Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature yielded 29 relevant studies from 14,866 studies, spanning six countries and from 2018 to 2024. Digital scribes demonstrated effectiveness in reducing documentation time, which directly enhances workflow efficiency and allows clinicians to spend more time interacting with patients. Digital scribes, while promising in improving clinical documentation, face significant integration challenges and adoption barriers, particularly in adapting to diverse healthcare workflows. The findings of this scoping review reveal several implications for the existing literature on digital scribes, particularly regarding the need for comprehensive studies on effectiveness in real-world primary care settings. This study highlights the promising role of digital scribes in primary care, where ASR and NLP technologies have demonstrated the potential to enhance documentation accuracy, streamline workflows, and reduce clinician burden.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41483142What 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.