ReviewJournal of multidisciplinary healthcare2026
Artificial Intelligence Integration in Multidisciplinary Wound Management: A Scoping Review of Barriers and Facilitators in Clinical Workflows.
Review in Journal of multidisciplinary healthcare, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Chronic wound management is a complex global health challenge that requires coordinated multidisciplinary care. Artificial intelligence (AI) has the potential to improve wound assessment, documentation, and clinical decision support. However, its successful implementation depends not only on algorithmic accuracy but also on its alignment with existing sociotechnical systems and clinical workflows. Objective: This scoping review aimed to map the operational barriers and facilitators encountered by interprofessional healthcare teams when integrating AI-based wound management technologies into clinical practice. Methods: Guided by the Arksey and O'Malley framework and the PRISMA-ScR guidelines, a systematic literature search was conducted in PubMed, Scopus, and ScienceDirect. Empirical studies published between 2021 and 2026 were included if they examined AI-based wound management technologies in relation to clinical workflows, workload, documentation, or implementation outcomes. Results: Nine primary studies met the eligibility criteria. The thematic synthesis identified several workflow-related facilitators, including improved documentation efficiency, greater adherence to evidence-based guidelines, enhanced diagnostic objectivity, and support for preventive care. Key barriers included increased cognitive and administrative workload during early adoption, limited interoperability with primary electronic health records, risk of automation bias, and concerns that AI may weaken relational and sensory-based aspects of clinical care. Conclusion: AI integration in multidisciplinary wound care may support workflow efficiency and clinical decision-making, but its implementation remains a sociotechnical challenge. Sustainable adoption requires native EHR interoperability, careful mitigation of digital fatigue, and human-in-the-loop design to ensure that AI enhances clinical practice without compromising professional judgment and humanistic patient care.
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.