ArticleEuropean archives of oto-rhino-laryngology : official journal of the European Federation of Oto-Rhino-Laryngological Societies (EUFOS) : affiliated with the German Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology - Head and Neck Surgery2024
The quality and readability of patient information provided by ChatGPT: can AI reliably explain common ENT operations?
Article in European archives of oto-rhino-laryngology : official journal of the European Federation of Oto-Rhino-Laryngological Societies (EUFOS) : affiliated with the German Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology - Head and Neck Surgery, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 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
15 citing papers in PubMed.
- MicrotiaGPT: Appraisal of Microtia Care Recommendations From an Artificially Intelligent Chatbot.Laryngoscope investigative otolaryngology · 2026Article
- Review
- Accuracy and readability of LLM-generated responses for gout management: a benchmark study based on ACR guidelines.Clinical rheumatology · 2026Article
- Better understanding: can a large language model safely improve readability of patient information leaflets in interventional radiology?BMJ health & care informatics · 2025Article
- Observational
- Applications of Natural Language Processing in Otolaryngology: A Scoping Review.The Laryngoscope · 2025Article
- Observational
- Assessing ChatGPT's Capability in Addressing Thyroid Cancer Patient Queries: A Comprehensive Mixed-Methods Evaluation.Journal of the Endocrine Society · 2025Article
- Article
- An Analysis of the Readability of Public-Facing Information Relating to Prevention of Infectious Diseases by Vaccination.British journal of biomedical science · 2025Article
- Generative AI/LLMs for Plain Language Medical Information for Patients, Caregivers and General Public: Opportunities, Risks and Ethics.Patient preference and adherence · 2025Review
- Accuracy of ChatGPT responses on tracheotomy for patient education.European archives of oto-rhino-laryngology : official journal of the European Federation of Oto-Rhino-Laryngological Societies (EUFOS) : affiliated with the German Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology - Head and Neck Surgery · 2024Article
- Limitations of readability assessment tools.European archives of oto-rhino-laryngology : official journal of the European Federation of Oto-Rhino-Laryngological Societies (EUFOS) : affiliated with the German Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology - Head and Neck Surgery · 2024Article
- Can artificial intelligence models serve as patient information consultants in orthodontics?BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2024Article
- The Role of Large Language Models (LLMs) in Providing Triage for Maxillofacial Trauma Cases: A Preliminary Study.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeAccess to high-quality and comprehensible patient information is crucial. However, information provided by increasingly prevalent Artificial Intelligence tools has not been thoroughly investigated. This study assesses the quality and readability of information from ChatGPT regarding three index ENT operations: tonsillectomy, adenoidectomy, and grommets.
methodsWe asked ChatGPT standard and simplified questions. Readability was calculated using Flesch-Kincaid Reading Ease Score (FRES), Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level (FKGL), Gunning Fog Index (GFI) and Simple Measure of Gobbledygook (SMOG) scores. We assessed quality using the DISCERN instrument and compared these with ENT UK patient leaflets.
resultsChatGPT readability was poor, with mean FRES of 38.9 and 55.1 pre- and post-simplification, respectively. Simplified information from ChatGPT was 43.6% more readable (FRES) but scored 11.6% lower for quality. ENT UK patient information readability and quality was consistently higher.
conclusionsChatGPT can simplify information at the expense of quality, resulting in shorter answers with important omissions. Limitations in knowledge and insight curb its reliability for healthcare information. Patients should use reputable sources from professional organisations alongside clear communication with their clinicians for well-informed consent and making decisions.
Indexed as
Identifiers
38530460What 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.