ArticlePLOS digital health2026
Explainable AI in hospital clinical decision support systems: A scoping review of healthcare professionals' perspectives.
Article in PLOS digital health, 2026. 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI) has the potential to enhance clinical decision support (CDS) systems however, it remains unclear how XAI systems are perceived by healthcare professionals in hospital settings, and if new challenges arise as a result of explanations. This scoping review aimed to understand healthcare professionals' perceptions of CDS systems with XAI in the hospital setting; specifically, the drivers of acceptance and use, explainability needs, and design preferences. Databases were searched. Studies were included if they reported qualitative findings on health professionals' perceptions of XAI-enabled CDS systems used in hospital settings. MEDLINE, Embase, and Web of Science were searched, and reference lists were screened for additional papers. Study characteristics and health professional perceptions were extracted and inductively coded. A quality assessment was performed using the CASP checklist. Sixteen studies were identified. Included studies primarily focused on ML-based CDS systems for predicting various clinical outcomes. Most studies used feature importance or model agnostic techniques like SHapley Additive exPlanations (SHAP). Overall, healthcare professionals perceived CDS systems with XAI as useful for supporting clinical tasks, decision-making, and teamwork. Acceptance was influenced by integration into workflows, performance, data quality, and alignment with clinical knowledge. Concerns were raised about overreliance and reduced professional autonomy. Health professionals predominantly used explanations to validate outputs, and desired actionable information from systems. SHAP plots and visualizations were difficult to interpret. Participants preferred explanation designs that included concise, high-level information, and simple plots for quick interpretation. Clear visual indicators such as colour coding, contextual patient data, and aggregating similar features also aided interpretation. Poorly designed XAI explanations can hinder understanding and increase cognitive burden in busy clinical settings. Future research should optimise the design and delivery of explanations, so clinicians can appropriately trust in XAI CDS systems and feel confident in their clinical decision making.
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.