ArticleThe Laryngoscope2026
Ambient Artificial Intelligence Scribes: A Scoping Review With Implications for Otolaryngology.
Article in The Laryngoscope, 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.
- [Use of artificial intelligence in clinical practice and hospitals].Urologie (Heidelberg, Germany) · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND/
objectiveAmbient artificial intelligence scribing, "ambient AI," is expanding across ambulatory specialties. Despite adoption, the impact on documentation efficiency, usability, and implications for otolaryngology remain poorly understood. This scoping review evaluates ambient AI utilization in multiple specialties in four areas (documentation efficiency, burnout, usability, workflow impact) to identify research gaps and apply findings from general ambulatory care to otolaryngology. SOURCES OF EVIDENCE: PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, and Scopus. ELIGIBILITY/CHARTING
methodsA PRISMA-ScR compliant scoping review was conducted of studies published between January 2022 and July 2025, using search terms related to ambient AI scribe technology. Two reviewers independently screened articles and assessed quality using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS). Data were synthesized narratively and stratified into subcategories.
resultsWe identified 164 articles and 12 met the inclusion criteria. Four studies included otolaryngology providers, but their experiences were not reported separately. Time-saved-per-note and after-hours reductions ranged from 0.2 to 2.1 and 1.6 to 15.2 min, respectively. Documentation usability scores post-implementation were high, ranging from 69.01 to 78.8/100. Perceived workflow efficiency score improved from 3.63/7 to 5.03/7. Validated instruments showed significant burnout reduction (Stanford PFI: 4.16-3.16/10, p = 0.005; NASA-TLX mental demand decreased 6.12 points, p < 0.001).
conclusionsAvailable literature on Ambient AI use in ambulatory settings does not define experiences of otolaryngologists but does report time savings, improved perceptions of usability, and reduced burnout. However, gaps must be addressed in reporting AI model performance and consistent outcome measures. Future studies must include special otolaryngology populations that have communication challenges. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: N/A.
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.