ReviewCurrent urology reports2026
Artificial Intelligence in Urologic Documentation: A Review of Emerging Capabilities and the Ongoing Need for Human Oversight.
Review in Current urology reports, 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.
- Building Clinical Artificial Intelligence at the PICU Bedside: Recognizing the Clinician-Builder.Critical care explorations · 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purpose of reviewClinical documentation continues to expand in volume and complexity, spanning outpatient encounters, inpatient summaries, patient-portal communications, and educational materials. These growing demands contribute to clinician burden and reduce time available for direct patient care. Artificial intelligence (AI) has emerged as a potential strategy to streamline documentation workflows. This review evaluates current AI applications in clinical documentation, with illustrative examples from urologic practice. RECENT
findingsAmbient AI scribes can capture the bulk of outpatient encounters and generate structured draft notes that clinicians edit rather than write de novo. Large language models have shown promise in assisting with inpatient documentation and discharge summaries, often producing drafts that are coherent, readable, and shorter than physician-authored text. AI tools can also simplify patient education materials and translate dense radiology reports into accessible language. Across these domains, however, studies consistently demonstrate that AI-generated content remains vulnerable to factual errors, omissions, hallucinations, and misaligned emphasis, reinforcing the need for clinician oversight. Overall, emerging evidence supports a complementary relationship between clinicians and AI. Used as supervised drafting aids rather than autonomous authors, AI tools have the potential to ease documentation burden and create more time for direct patient care without diminishing the clinician's role in shaping the medical record.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42067659What 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.