Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42886841›Full record

ReviewJMIR nursing2026

Natural Language Processing in Nursing Practice for Clinical Reasoning and Workflow: Scoping Review.

Keisuke Iwase, Taiki Teshima, Miyae Yamakawa, Yasushi Takeya

Abstract readScoping ReviewReview
In one paragraph

Review in JMIR nursing, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Keisuke IwaseFaculty of Nursing, School of Health Sciences, Fujita Health University, Toyoake, Aichi, Japan.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0009-9256-2310
Taiki TeshimaDepartment of Evidence-Based Clinical Nursing, Division of Health Sciences, Graduate School of Medicine, Osaka University, 1-7 Yamadaoka, Suita, Osaka, Japan, 1 6-6879-2543.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0004-2975-2262
Miyae YamakawaDepartment of Evidence-Based Clinical Nursing, Division of Health Sciences, Graduate School of Medicine, Osaka University, 1-7 Yamadaoka, Suita, Osaka, Japan, 1 6-6879-2543.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2399-8366
Yasushi TakeyaDepartment of Evidence-Based Clinical Nursing, Division of Health Sciences, Graduate School of Medicine, Osaka University, 1-7 Yamadaoka, Suita, Osaka, Japan, 1 6-6879-2543.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9901-2666

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Recent advancements in digital health technologies have led to the accumulation of large volumes of unstructured text data, particularly in electronic health records. Given that nursing documentation frequently includes detailed descriptions of daily living activities and psychosocial contexts, existing medical natural language processing (NLP) tools may not be directly applicable without adaptation. Moreover, the integration of standardized nursing terminologies into NLP systems remains limited. Although NLP has the potential to support risk detection, information management, and care planning, its practical applications in nursing have not yet been systematically mapped. Objective: This scoping review aimed to map the practical applications of NLP in nursing practice, with a specific focus on real-world clinical use, particularly for assessment, documentation, and interventions, and to identify the study characteristics, application domains, outcomes, and challenges. Methods: Following the Joanna Briggs Institute methodology and PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews) guidelines, a systematic search was conducted across PubMed, CINAHL, the Cochrane Library, Scopus, Embase, and Ichushi-Web in October 2023 and June 2025. The population-concept-context framework (population: nurses; concept: NLP applications; context: clinical settings) was used to guide study selection. Two independent reviewers screened 2889 unique records and reviewed the full texts of 72 studies. Data were descriptively synthesized and thematically classified. Results: Six studies met the inclusion criteria, indicating that empirically evaluated applications of NLP in real-world nursing practice remain limited. NLP applications were categorized into three domains: (1) text summarization and generation, (2) information extraction and classification, and (3) real-time detection and screening. NLP was applied across multiple stages of nursing practice, including handovers, assessment, care planning, continuity of care, and patient safety management. Notably, NLP was used as a form of augmented intelligence to complement, rather than replace, nurses' clinical judgment and to support clinical decision-making. These findings also highlight a substantial gap between rapid technological advances and the limited implementation of NLP in real-world nursing practice. Conclusions: This review highlights the substantial gap between rapid technological advances and the limited implementation of NLP in real-world nursing practice. NLP may help reduce manual review workload, support early risk identification, and facilitate individualized care planning in selected nursing contexts. However, direct empirical evidence regarding its effects on nursing workflows, nurses' clinical decision-making, and patient-level outcomes remains limited. Future research should prioritize real-world implementation studies and evaluate nurses' acceptance, adoption barriers, workflow integration, and the influence of NLP on clinical decision-making.

Indexed as

Clinical Decision-MakingNatural Language ProcessingWorkflowDigital HealthElectronic Health RecordsHumansAIclinical decision supportnatural language processingnursing documentationscoping review

Identifiers

PMID42886841
PMCPMC13674688

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.