ArticleCureus2024
Utilizing ChatGPT in Telepharmacy.
Article in Cureus, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers.
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
13 citing papers in PubMed.
- Factors Shaping Trust and Satisfaction With AI Medical Chatbots: A Mixed Methods Vignette Survey of Caregivers Seeking Guidance on Pediatric Infectious Diseases.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Article
- Article
- A systematic review of the limitations of large language models in generating healthcare content.PLOS digital health · 2026Article
- A multicenter multifunctional assessment of large language models in pure-tone audiogram interpretation for patients.NPJ digital medicine · 2026Article
- Empowering Informal Caregivers of Persons With Early-Stage Dementia by Large Language Models: Mixed Methods Evaluation.JMIR formative research · 2026Article
- Paediatric rare diseases: Can large language models assist off-label prescribing?British journal of clinical pharmacology · 2025Article
- Pre-trained ChatGPT for report generation in automated microbial identification and antibiotic susceptibility testing systems.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Role-based prompting to optimize chatgpt's anatomical assessment.Surgical and radiologic anatomy : SRA · 2025Article
- Development of a questionnaire for assessing the use of ChatGPT in primary and secondary disease prevention.Frontiers in public health · 2025Article
- Assessing the ability of GPT-4o to visually recognize medications and provide patient education.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- A framework for human evaluation of large language models in healthcare derived from literature review.NPJ digital medicine · 2024Article
- eHealth Assistant AI Chatbot Using a Large Language Model to Provide Personalized Answers through Secure Decentralized Communication.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Comparative performance analysis of large language models: ChatGPT-3.5, ChatGPT-4 and Google Gemini in glucocorticoid-induced osteoporosis.Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundChatGPT is an artificial intelligence-powered chatbot that has demonstrated capabilities in numerous fields, including medical and healthcare sciences. This study evaluates the potential for ChatGPT application in telepharmacy, the delivering of pharmaceutical care via means of telecommunications, through assessing its interactions, adherence to instructions, and ability to role-play as a pharmacist while handling a series of life-like scenario questions.
methodsTwo versions (ChatGPT 3.5 and 4.0, OpenAI) were assessed using two independent trials each. ChatGPT was instructed to act as a pharmacist and answer patient inquiries, followed by a set of 20 assessment questions. Then, ChatGPT was instructed to stop its act, provide feedback and list its sources for drug information. The responses to the assessment questions were evaluated in terms of accuracy, precision and clarity using a 4-point Likert-like scale.
resultsChatGPT demonstrated the ability to follow detailed instructions, role-play as a pharmacist, and appropriately handle all questions. ChatGPT was able to understand case details, recognize generic and brand drug names, identify drug side effects, interactions, prescription requirements and precautions, and provide proper point-by-point instructions regarding administration, dosing, storage and disposal. The overall means of pooled scores were 3.425 (0.712) and 3.7 (0.61) for ChatGPT 3.5 and 4.0, respectively. The rank distribution of scores was not significantly different (P>0.05). None of the answers could be considered directly harmful or labeled as entirely or mostly incorrect, and most point deductions were due to other factors such as indecisiveness, adding immaterial information, missing certain considerations, or partial unclarity. The answers were similar in length across trials and appropriately concise. ChatGPT 4.0 showed superior performance, higher consistency, better character adherence and the ability to report various reliable information sources. However, it only allowed an input of 40 questions every three hours and provided inaccurate feedback regarding the number of assessed patients, compared to 3.5 which allowed unlimited input but was unable to provide feedback.
conclusionsIntegrating ChatGPT in telepharmacy holds promising potential; however, a number of drawbacks are to be overcome in order to function effectively.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion 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 OpenQuestion graph.