ArticleBMJ open2026
Use of ambient AI scribe in physicians' clinical documentation: a protocol for a systematic review on effectiveness, efficiency, and satisfaction.
Article in BMJ open, 2026. 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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionClinical documentation is a significant driver of burnout among physicians. Ambient artificial intelligence (AI) scribes, which leverage generative large language models to automate the creation of clinical notes from patient-physician conversations, are rapidly emerging as a potential solution. While these tools promise to enhance efficiency and reduce administrative tasks, concerns about the quality, accuracy and potential biases persist. There is now a need for a systematic synthesis of evidence to evaluate the impact of these technologies in clinical practice. To assess the effects of ambient AI scribes on physicians' clinical documentation, the specific objectives are to: (1) evaluate the effectiveness of these tools on documentation, including accuracy and completeness; (2) synthesise evidence on the impact on physician efficiency after adoption, including time spent on documentation and (3) examine physicians' satisfaction with these tools, including physicians' perceived burden. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A systematic review of quantitative or mixed-method studies as well as preprints will be conducted. We will perform a comprehensive search of four electronic databases (PubMed, IEEE Xplore, APA PsycInfo and Web of Science, along with medRix and ClinicalTrials.gov for preprints) for empirical studies published between January 2023 and March 2026. The review will synthesise studies comparing physicians' use of ambient AI scribes with traditional documentation approaches. Given the anticipated heterogeneity of the studies, a narrative synthesis will be employed to summarise the findings. Where common quantitative outcomes exist, effect sizes will be calculated using Hedges' g, mean differences or risk ratios/odds ratios as appropriate. The overall quality of evidence will be assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) framework. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: As no patient data are involved in the data collection, no ethical approval is acquired. Results will be disseminated in a peer-reviewed, open-access journal, and presented at relevant academic conferences. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD420251149086.
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.