Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37808939›Full record

SynthesisHealth promotion perspectives2023

Exploring the role of ChatGPT in patient care (diagnosis and treatment) and medical research: A systematic review.

Ravindra Kumar Garg, Vijeth L Urs, Akshay Anand Agarwal, Sarvesh Kumar Chaudhary, Vimal Paliwal, Sujita Kumar Kar

Abstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Health promotion perspectives, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 86 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
86citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
–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

86 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Recent Advances in AI and GenAI for Health Informatics.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026
    Review
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Article

26 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

6 authors.

Ravindra Kumar GargDepartment of Neurology, King George's Medical University, Lucknow, India.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0044-7083
Vijeth L UrsDepartment of Neurology, King George's Medical University, Lucknow, India.
Akshay Anand AgarwalDepartment of Surgery, King George's Medical University, Lucknow, India.
Sarvesh Kumar ChaudharyDepartment of Neurology, King George's Medical University, Lucknow, India.
Vimal PaliwalDepartment of Neurology, Sanjay Gandhi Institute of Medical Sciences, Lucknow, India.
Sujita Kumar KarDepartment of Psychiatry, King George's Medical University, Lucknow, India.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: ChatGPT is an artificial intelligence based tool developed by OpenAI (California, USA). This systematic review examines the potential of ChatGPT in patient care and its role in medical research. Methods: The systematic review was done according to the PRISMA guidelines. Embase, Scopus, PubMed and Google Scholar data bases were searched. We also searched preprint data bases. Our search was aimed to identify all kinds of publications, without any restrictions, on ChatGPT and its application in medical research, medical publishing and patient care. We used search term "ChatGPT". We reviewed all kinds of publications including original articles, reviews, editorial/ commentaries, and even letter to the editor. Each selected records were analysed using ChatGPT and responses generated were compiled in a table. The word table was transformed in to a PDF and was further analysed using ChatPDF. Results: We reviewed full texts of 118 articles. ChatGPT can assist with patient enquiries, note writing, decision-making, trial enrolment, data management, decision support, research support, and patient education. But the solutions it offers are usually insufficient and contradictory, raising questions about their originality, privacy, correctness, bias, and legality. Due to its lack of human-like qualities, ChatGPT's legitimacy as an author is questioned when used for academic writing. ChatGPT generated contents have concerns with bias and possible plagiarism. Conclusion: Although it can help with patient treatment and research, there are issues with accuracy, authorship, and bias. ChatGPT can serve as a "clinical assistant" and be a help in research and scholarly writing.

Indexed as

Artificial intelligenceAuthorshipMachine learningPublishingScholarly

Identifiers

PMID37808939
PMCPMC10558973

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.