ArticleWorld journal of urology2026
Ambient artificial intelligence scribes in urology: a pilot evaluation of user experience and clinical efficiency gains.
Article in World journal of urology, 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
purposeAmbient artificial intelligence (AI) scribes aim to reduce documentation burden, yet evidence in urology is limited. We evaluated the pilot rollout of an AI scribe system in our academic urology department, focusing on user experience and electronic health record-based efficiency metrics.
methodsAI scribes were introduced into outpatient urology clinics in June 2024. We developed a user experience questionnaire to assess navigation, functionality, workload reduction, and clinical impact at 1 and 11 months of implementation. Clinical efficiency was evaluated using changes in Epic Signal metrics from pre- to post-rollout. Descriptive statistics were stratified by AI scribe adoption status and documentation method.
resultsOf 41 eligible clinicians, seven initially enrolled in the AI scribe pilot. Two clinicians discontinued use, and three additional clinicians adopted the technology, resulting in eight persistent AI scribe users (19.5%). Median utilization in office visit notes was 90%. User experience improved across all domains, most notably in workload reduction (3.1 to 4.7). Users reported reduced after-hours charting and improved patient interaction; limitations included lack of pre-charting capabilities and insufficient adaptation to urology-specific documentation needs. AI scribe users demonstrated consistent within-clinician reductions in time in notes per day (-28.7%; 14.0 min), time in notes per appointment (-21.9%; 0.9 min), and time outside scheduled hours (-28.6%; 13.4 min). Inconsistent background trends were observed among non-users.
conclusionAI scribe users reported positive experience with the technology and demonstrated reductions in documentation burden. Findings are exploratory and support larger, controlled evaluations of note quality and workflow impact.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42870111What 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.