ArticleInterventional pain medicine2026
Utilization and perceptions of artificial intelligence in pain medicine practice: An international pain and spine intervention society survey-based analysis.
Article in Interventional pain medicine, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Artificial intelligence (AI) is rapidly expanding with Pain medicine, offering applications ranging from clinical documentation to predictive modeling. In view of this growing interest, the characteristics and sentiments of physician AI users in this field ought to be better delineated. Objectives: To characterize the demographics of AI users in Pain medicine and evaluate patterns of adoption, utilization and attitudes towards AI integration in the clinical practice of Pain medicine. Methods: A web-based survey was distributed via email and social media to US and international clinicians. Survey design was validated by the IPSIS AI Task Force and deemed IRB-exempt. Responses were analyzed descriptively. Results: Respondents were predominantly male (83.9%) and most commonly anesthesiologists (35.7%) or PM&R physicians (48.2%), with over 60% in practice >10 years. AI familiarity was high, with 75% reporting clinical use and 51% using AI daily. Common applications included ambient documentation (60.8%) and research summarization (56.9%). Most users reported positive impact, particularly in time savings (80%). Key concerns included overreliance (38%), misinformation (38%), and legal liability (32%). Over 80% anticipated increased AI use within 2 years. Conclusions: AI adoption among Pain physicians is significant and viewed favorably, though primarily applied to non-specialty-specific tasks. Addressing concerns and enhancing integration and education will be critical for advancing specialty-specific AI utilization.
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.