ArticleJournal of clinical monitoring and computing2026
Perceptions on artificial intelligence among anaesthesia and intensive care professionals: An international survey on attitudes, expectations and needs.
Article in Journal of clinical monitoring and computing, 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
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background Artificial intelligence (AI) can enhance diagnostics, treatment, and workflow efficiency. However, successful integration into clinical practice depends on users' acceptance. Objective To investigate benefits, barriers, and challenges of AI applications among anaesthesia and intensive care professionals. Design International online survey. Main outcome measures The survey included items on familiarity and experiences with AI applications, perceived benefits, concerns, and demographic variables. Descriptive analyses, fisher exact tests, χ²-tests, odds ratios, and Spearman rank correlations were used to explore associations between responses and demographics. Results The survey was distributed by the European Society of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care in 2023. A total of 510 respondents completed the entire survey, primarily from Europe (78%) and Asia (14.5%), and the majority were board-certified anaesthesiologists (86.3%). 86.5% of the respondents were aware of AI applications, but only 36.8% reported regular encounters. Familiarity was higher among males and intensive care specialists. 94.5% expressed interest in AI training, particularly younger and less experienced professionals. 94.7% expressed willingness to use AI applications, citing benefits such as improved decision-making (92.7%), complication anticipation (88.6%), and workload reduction (80.1%). Younger and female respondents were more optimistic about AI's benefits. Key concerns included lack of explainability (68.4%), over-reliance on AI (80.8%), and medico-legal uncertainties (58.4%). Scepticism was attributed to insufficient validation studies and fears of inaccurate outputs, particularly among experienced clinicians. Conclusions This international survey shows cautious optimism among anaesthesia and intensive care professionals regarding AI applications. Adoption in clinical practice requires tailored training that accounts also for demographic-specific concerns, robust validation, and clear ethical and legal frameworks.
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.