Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38597205›Full record

ArticleActa orthopaedica2024

ChatGPT-4 generates orthopedic discharge documents faster than humans maintaining comparable quality: a pilot study of 6 cases.

Guillermo Sánchez-Rosenberg, Martin Magnéli, Niklas Barle, Michael G Kontakis, Andreas Marc Müller, Matthias Wittauer, Max Gordon, Cyrus Brodén

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Acta orthopaedica, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 25 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
25citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

25 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Observational
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Large Language Models in Spine Surgery: A Promising Technology.HSS journal : the musculoskeletal journal of Hospital for Special Surgery · 2025
    Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Benefits, limits, and risks of ChatGPT in medicine.Frontiers in artificial intelligence · 2025
    Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
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

8 authors.

Guillermo Sánchez-RosenbergDepartment of Orthopedic and Trauma Surgery, University Hospital Basel, Switzerland.
Martin MagnéliKarolinska Institute, Department of Clinical Sciences at Danderyd Hospital, Stockholm; Sweden.
Niklas BarleKarolinska Institute, Department of Clinical Sciences at Danderyd Hospital, Stockholm; Sweden.
Michael G KontakisDepartment of Surgical Sciences, Orthopedics, Uppsala University Hospital, Uppsala, Sweden.
Andreas Marc MüllerDepartment of Orthopedic and Trauma Surgery, University Hospital Basel, Switzerland.
Matthias WittauerDepartment of Orthopedic and Trauma Surgery, University Hospital Basel, Switzerland.
Max GordonKarolinska Institute, Department of Clinical Sciences at Danderyd Hospital, Stockholm; Sweden.
Cyrus BrodénDepartment of Surgical Sciences, Orthopedics, Uppsala University Hospital, Uppsala, Sweden. cyrus.broden@akademiska.se.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

background and purposeLarge language models like ChatGPT-4 have emerged. They hold the potential to reduce the administrative burden by generating everyday clinical documents, thus allowing the physician to spend more time with the patient. We aimed to assess both the quality and efficiency of discharge documents generated by ChatGPT-4 in comparison with those produced by physicians. PATIENTS AND

methodsTo emulate real-world situations, the health records of 6 fictional orthopedic cases were created. Discharge documents for each case were generated by a junior attending orthopedic surgeon and an advanced orthopedic resident. ChatGPT-4 was then prompted to generate the discharge documents using the same health record information. The quality assessment was performed by an expert panel (n = 15) blinded to the source of the documents. As secondary outcome, the time required to generate the documents was compared, logging the duration of the creation of the discharge documents by the physician and by ChatGPT-4.

resultsOverall, both ChatGPT-4 and physician-generated notes were comparable in quality. Notably, ChatGPT-4 generated discharge documents 10 times faster than the traditional method. 4 events of hallucinations were found in the ChatGPT-4-generated content, compared with 6 events in the human/physician produced notes.

conclusionChatGPT-4 creates orthopedic discharge notes faster than physicians, with comparable quality. This shows it has great potential for making these documents more efficient in orthopedic care. ChatGPT-4 has the potential to significantly reduce the administrative burden on healthcare professionals.

Indexed as

OrthopedicsOrthopedic SurgeonsHealth PersonnelHumansPatient DischargePilot Projects

Identifiers

PMID38597205
PMCPMC10959013

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.