ReviewJournal of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons. Global research & reviews2026
Artificial Intelligence Scribes in Orthopaedic Surgery: A Narrative Review.
Review in Journal of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons. Global research & reviews, 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
introductionThe growing applications of artificial intelligence (AI) is transforming the healthcare landscape by reshaping diagnostics, workflow operations, and clinical decision making. Among its most promising application in surgery is the development of AI scribes designed to reduce the burden of documentation. This review examines standard and emerging documentation tools with a focus on orthopaedic surgery.
methodsA narrative review of the applications of AI and AI scribes in orthopaedic surgery was done. Literature searches were conducted using PubMed and Google Scholar through July 2025. Keywords included AI, documentation, scribes, AI scribes, and electronic health record. Articles were included if they focused on clinical documentation with particular relevance to orthopaedic surgery. In addition, a targeted review of commercially available AI scribe platforms was conducted, extracting advertised features including orthopaedic note tailoring, EHR integration, security policies, cost, strengths, and potential areas of consideration.
resultsThe standard documentation approaches, including human transcription services, medical scribes, and frontend speech recognition software, provide partial relief from documentation burden but remain limited by cost, scalability, and workflow integration. Although human transcription services and medical scribes can capture nuanced clinical information and provide real-time support, they are constrained by turnaround time, financial burden, and scalability challenges. By contrast, emerging AI scribe platforms offer EHR-integrated, ambient documentation solutions but vary widely in cost, scalability, and orthopaedic-specific customization, highlighting ongoing challenges in addressing the unique documentation demands of orthopaedic practice. DISCUSSION: AI scribes represent a promising evolution in clinical documentation for orthopaedic surgery. Although early results are encouraging, further specialty-specific validation is needed to address orthopaedic workflows, ensure accuracy, and define optimal implementation strategies; however, ethical considerations and patient privacy protections remain essential to safe and responsible implementation.
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.