ArticleBMJ digital health & AI2026
The use of ambient voice technology (AVT) for clinician-patient consultations in healthcare practice: A rapid systematic scoping review.
Article in BMJ digital health & AI, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Evaluation of Ambient Voice Technology in the National Health Service in England: Protocol for a Phase 2 Study.JMIR research protocols · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: Using ambient voice technology (AVT) to transcribe and summarise clinician-patient consultations in real time is increasing in healthcare practice, with the aim of reducing clinical documentation burden. However, the evidence base remains underdeveloped. This review synthesised current evidence on the use and impact of AVT for documenting clinician-patient consultations in healthcare. We also examined how impact has been evaluated and measured with the aim of informing future research and assessment in real-world practice. Methods: We conducted a rapid systematic scoping review (PROSPERO: CRD420251155579). Four databases and grey literature sources were searched in September 2025. Of 598 articles screened, 21 met the inclusion criteria. These studies evaluated user experiences with AVT (n Results: Evidence on the real-world impact of AVT remains limited. While some studies report reduced documentation burden and improvements in staff well-being and perceived care quality, these findings largely stem from short-term observational designs and self-reported measures. Evidence relating to wider, system-level impacts such as pathway productivity, patient safety and cost effectiveness is sparse. Approaches to evaluating AVT were heterogeneous and inconsistent, particularly when reporting on system-level impacts beyond the clinician-patient consultation. Different factors (e.g., workflow integration, output quality), the consultation context and clinical setting influenced experiences of using AVT. Conclusions: Current evidence does not yet support widespread adoption of AVT in clinical practice. Although early findings suggest potentially important benefits, available studies are heterogeneous, predominantly short-term and methodologically limited. It remains unclear whether the improvements reported to date translate into sustained gains in clinical capacity, care quality or system efficiency. Longer-term evaluations using standardised outcome measures complemented by qualitative methods, are needed to determine the impact and value of AVT in healthcare. PROSPERO registration number: CRD420251155579.
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.