ArticleBMJ open2025
Embodied conversational agents for shared decision-making: a scoping review protocol.
Article in BMJ open, 2025. 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.
- Implementing Patient Decision Aids for Insulin Initiation in China: What are the Barriers and Facilitators? A TDF-Based Qualitative Study.Journal of diabetes research · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionEmbodied conversational agents (ECAs) are computer-based dialogue systems designed to simulate face-to-face interactions by incorporating human-like physical attributes. Their capacity to establish and maintain an empathic relationship in patient interactions positions them as innovative tools that facilitate shared decision-making (SDM). To systematically synthesise the existing evidence concerning the development and application of ECAs in promoting SDM, this protocol delineates a scoping review designed to identify and present the available evidence within this domain. Specifically, the protocol outlines a review that will concentrate on the key features of ECAs in the context of SDM, including their appearance, dialogue mechanisms and emotional models, within the framework, as well as their implementation and evaluation in clinical settings. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The framework established by Arksey and O'Malley will be employed to guide the scoping review process. This protocol outlines the systematic retrieval of seven databases, including PubMed, EMBASE, PsycINFO, Web of Science, the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) Xplore Digital Library and Association for Computing Machinery (ACM) Digital Library. The search strategy has been developed and will be conducted across each database, from its inception to September 2024. Two researchers will conduct literature screening and data extraction independently. The results will be systematically organised and presented through narrative abstracts, tables and/or figures. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval is not necessary for this review, as it uses data that have been previously collected. Furthermore, the obtained results will be reported in a peer-reviewed journal. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: Open Science Framework Registries (https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/BN3CM).
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.