ArticleCureus2025
Perceptions and Attitudes of Emergency Physicians in Saudi Arabia Regarding Medical Use of Artificial Intelligence.
Article in Cureus, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundArtificial intelligence (AI) is increasingly recognized for its potential to support clinical decision-making and workflow optimization in emergency medicine (EM). However, the perspectives of emergency physicians, particularly in Saudi Arabia, regarding its integration remain understudied.
objectiveTo assess the attitudes, familiarity, perceived advantages, and concerns of Saudi emergency physicians regarding the application of AI in clinical emergency practice.
methodsA descriptive cross-sectional study was conducted between February and April 2025 using a self-administered online questionnaire distributed to emergency physicians across Saudi Arabia. Inclusion criteria were active clinical engagement and at least one year of EM experience. Descriptive and inferential statistics were performed using SPSS version 26.
resultsAmong 101 participants, the majority were male, 71 (70.3%), and aged 25-29 years, 71 (70.3%). A total of 51 (50.5%) agreed that they were familiar with AI, while 97 (96%) believed that AI has useful applications in medicine. However, 41 (40.6%) disagreed that AI has superior diagnostic ability compared to human physicians, while 35 (34.7%) strongly disagreed that AI could replace their roles. The most cited advantages of AI were access to high-quality real-time clinical data, 75 (74.3%), absence of emotional or physical exhaustion, 69 (68.3%), and faster healthcare processes, 64 (63.4%). In cases of disagreement between physician and AI, 95 (94.1%) preferred the physician's opinion. Key concerns included AI's unreliability in unpredictable situations, 72 (71.3%), lack of flexibility in application, 64 (63.4%), and inability to handle controversial topics, 69 (68.3%). Over half, 54 (53.47%), expressed positive attitudes toward AI in EM. Attitudes were significantly more positive among physicians from the northern region (β=2.8, 95% CI: 0.37-5.1, p=0.024) and western region (β=2.0, 95% CI: 0.30-3.7, p=0.022) compared to the central region.
conclusionSaudi emergency physicians generally express positive attitudes toward AI, particularly in supporting clinical tasks, but remain cautious about its diagnostic authority and legal implications. Regional variation suggests the need for tailored educational and policy strategies to promote AI adoption in emergency settings.
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.