ArticleIndian journal of anaesthesia2026
Ethical readiness and trust in artificial intelligence-assisted anaesthesia: A cross-sectional survey study among anaesthesia professionals in India.
Article in Indian journal of anaesthesia, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and Aims: Perioperative anaesthesia is progressively integrating decision support systems based on artificial intelligence (AI). Safe AI use requires not only technical validation but also ethical preparedness and trust to uphold patient autonomy, informed consent, and clinician oversight. This study evaluated ethical readiness and trust towards AI integration among anaesthesia professionals using a cross-sectional survey. Methods: Anaesthesia professionals across Indian government, private, and corporate hospitals completed a structured, content-validated, and pilot-tested self-administered questionnaire assessing five domains. AI Ethical Trust and Readiness Index (AETRI) was derived as a composite score. Group differences, associations, and predictors were analysed using Mann-Whitney U/Kruskal-Wallis tests, Pearson's correlation, and multiple linear regression, respectively. Results: A total of 255 anaesthesia professionals participated, including 44.7% junior residents, 36.9% senior residents, 11.0% consultants, and 7.4% faculty. Most (69.4%) worked in government hospitals. The mean ± standard deviation domain scores were: Knowledge (K) 0.73 ± 0.21, Utility and Trust (UT) 3.41 ± 0.56, Ethical Readiness (ER) 3.62 ± 0.61, Transparency and Control (TC) 3.66 ± 0.64, and Institutional Support (IS) 1.86 ± 0.58. The mean AETRI was 57.2 ± 9.43, indicating moderate readiness. Knowledge varied by designation ( Conclusion: Anaesthesia professionals demonstrated moderate AI knowledge and trust but limited institutional readiness. Ethical readiness and transparency, rather than technical knowledge alone, are the primary determinants of clinician preparedness for AI integration.
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.