ArticleDie Ophthalmologie2026
[Requirements for artificial intelligence scribe systems for medical documentation in ophthalmology].
Article in Die Ophthalmologie, 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundClinical documentation accounts for a substantial proportion of ophthalmologists' working time and increasingly consumes scarce resources. Ambient scribe systems, which automatically transcribe clinical consultations and generate structured clinical notes, could reduce the documentation burden. To date, data on the acceptance of such systems in ophthalmology are lacking.
methodsOffice-based and employed ophthalmologists from a regional physician network in Germany were anonymously surveyed using an online questionnaire to assess use, acceptance and requirements for ambient scribe systems. In addition, sociodemographic data and the proportion of working time spent on clinical documentation were collected.
resultsSurvey data from 34 ophthalmologists were available for analysis (median age 49 years, 47% female). Most respondents reported spending 20-39% of their working time on documentation. Approximately three quarters expressed general interest in using a reliable and secure ambient scribe system. Key perceived benefits included reduced documentation time and increased time for patient care. Major barriers were concerns regarding reliability of artificial intelligence (AI), integration into existing IT systems and data protection, with locally deployed solutions preferred over cloud-based approaches.
conclusionAmbient scribe systems are met with high acceptance among German ophthalmologists and are perceived as potentially relevant to future provision of ophthalmic care. Data protection-compliant, locally deployed and seamlessly integrable solutions will be essential for successful implementation and could increase the efficiency of eye care delivery.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42752949What 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.