ArticleJournal of surgical oncology2026
Listening in: Orthopaedic Oncology Physicians' Perspectives on Implementation of Audio Recording/Artificial Intelligence Assist in Office Visits.
Article in Journal of surgical oncology, 2026. 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.
- Listening in: Orthopaedic Oncology Physicians' Perspectives on Implementation of Audio Recording/Artificial Intelligence Assist in Office Visits.Journal of surgical oncology · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionWith rapid expansion of artificial intelligence (AI) in clinical documentation, responsible implementation of this tool is imperative in preserving the patient-physician relationship. Orthopaedic oncologists were surveyed to assess their utilization of, and attitudes towards, ambient listening software.
methodsAn anonymous, voluntary, IRB-exempt survey (Appendix) was reviewed and distributed to members of the MSTS via the society's email listserv and distributed in paper and electronic formats to attendees at the AAOS Oncology Subspeciality day from March 14 to May 22, 2025.
resultsSixty-three orthopaedic oncologists responded to the survey. Most (93%) practiced in an academic setting. Twenty-seven percent reported using AI with a majority using Dax Copilot. Half of AI users noted a positive impact on clinical encounters, and one respondent reported a negative impact. Most AI users (86%) reported improved efficiency and accuracy in documentation and 40% reported saving 1-2 h per clinic day. Of non-users, 71% were considering implementation.
conclusionAlthough most orthopaedic oncologists are not using AI, the majority are considering implementation. AI users reported improvements in their documentation efficiency and accuracy. Further research is needed to understand the risks and benefits of this clinical tool from both providers' and patients' perspectives to guide responsible, widespread implementation.
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.