Cited by 144Electronic Health Records SystemsSpeech Recognition and SynthesisNursing Diagnosis and Documentation

A systematic review of speech recognition technology in health care

Open access
Johnson, Maree, Lapkin, Samuel, Long, Vanessa, Sanchez, Paula, Suominen, Hanna, Basilakis, Jim, Dawson, Linda·2014·BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making

Abstract

BACKGROUND: To undertake a systematic review of existing literature relating to speech recognition technology and its application within health care. METHODS: A systematic review of existing literature from 2000 was undertaken. Inclusion criteria were: all papers that referred to speech recognition (SR) in health care settings, used by health professionals (allied health, medicine, nursing, technical or support staff), with an evaluation or patient or staff outcomes. Experimental and non-experimental designs were considered. Six databases (Ebscohost including CINAHL, EMBASE, MEDLINE including the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, OVID Technologies, PreMED-LINE, PsycINFO) were searched by a qualified health librarian trained in systematic review searches initially capturing 1,730 references. Fourteen studies met the inclusion criteria and were retained. RESULTS: The heterogeneity of the studies made comparative analysis and synthesis of the data challenging resulting in a narrative presentation of the results. SR, although not as accurate as human transcription, does deliver reduced turnaround times for reporting and cost-effective reporting, although equivocal evidence of improved workflow processes. CONCLUSIONS: SR systems have substantial benefits and should be considered in light of the cost and selection of the SR system, training requirements, length of the transcription task, potential use of macros and templates, the presence of accented voices or experienced and in-experienced typists, and workflow patterns.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1186/1472-6947-14-94

Cites

40 of 40 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Strategies to reduce documentation burden, including team documentation, automatic speech recognition technologies, and 2021 E&M coding changes have been implemented with variable impact.

    “Strategies to reduce documentation burden, including team documentation, 9-13 automatic speech recognition technologies, 14 and 2021 E&M coding changes 15 have been implemented with variable impact.16”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. The pre-publication history for this paper can be accessed here: http://www.biomedcentral.com/1472-6947/14/94/prepub

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Johnson, M., Lapkin, S., Long, V., Sanchez, P., Suominen, H., Basilakis, J., & Dawson, L.
Affiliations
  • Ingham Institute (AU)
  • Western Sydney University (AU)
  • Australian National University (AU)
  • University of Wollongong (AU)
Corresponding author
Johnson, Maree
Venue
BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making
Published
2014-10-28
Volume
14
Issue
1
Pages
94-94
ISSN
1472-6947 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2046499381
Cited by
141
References
40
Citations by year
2026: 13 · 2025: 17 · 2024: 16 · 2023: 23 · 2022: 18 · 2021: 8 · 2020: 11 · 2019: 7 · 2018: 16 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 6
FWCI
0.61
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Research Bank (Australian Catholic University) (submittedVersion)
  • Research Online (University of Wollongong) (submittedVersion)
  • Figshare (submittedVersion)
  • ANU Open Research (Australian National University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
  • ACT Government
  • Australian Government
  • Australian National University
  • University of New South Wales
  • University of Sydney
  • University of Western Sydney
  • Monash University
  • University of Melbourne
  • Griffith University
  • Queensland University of Technology
  • University of Queensland
  • Australian Research Council
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Electronic Health Records Systems
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Speech Recognition and Synthesis
  • Health Sciences › Nursing › Issues, ethics and legal aspects › Nursing Diagnosis and Documentation
Keywords
speech recognition, clinical documentation, transcription, cost-effectiveness, speech recognition accuracy, voice recognition
MeSH terms
Health Services, Humans, Speech Recognition Software

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review