ArticleInternational journal of nursing studies advances2024
Comparing ChatGPT and clinical nurses' performances on tracheostomy care: A cross-sectional study.
Article in International journal of nursing studies advances, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
12 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Accuracy of Large Language Models When Answering Clinical Research Questions: Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis.Journal of medical Internet research · 2025Pooled it
- The application of ChatGPT in nursing: a bibliometric and visualized analysis.Frontiers in medicine · 2024Pooled it
- Outcomes, Evaluation Metrics, and Measurement Tools for Large Language Model Applications Research in Nursing: A Scoping Review.International nursing review · 2026Article
- Messaging and Chatbot-Assisted Nursing Consultation (ChatACP) to Empower Family Members of Residents of Nursing Homes on Advance Care Planning: Protocol for a Mixed Methods Pilot Study.JMIR research protocols · 2026Article
- An Evaluation Framework for Large Language Models in Clinical Nursing: A Scoping Review and Expert Consultation.Journal of nursing management · 2026Article
- Detecting Sociodemographic Biases in the Content and Quality of Large Language Model-Generated Nursing Care: Cross-Sectional Simulation Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2025Article
- ChatGPT in Nursing: Applications, Advantages, and Challenges in Education, Research, and Clinical Practice.Annals of biomedical engineering · 2025Review
- Tracheostomy in the Digital Age: How Artificial Intelligence and Immersive Technologies Are Redefining Airway Care.Tracheostomy (Warrenville, Ill.) · 2025Article
- An Assessment of ChatGPT's Responses to Common Patient Questions About Lung Cancer Surgery: A Preliminary Clinical Evaluation of Accuracy and Relevance.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- Current trends and future implications in the utilization of ChatGPT in nursing: A rapid review.International journal of nursing studies advances · 2024Review
- Utilization of artificial intelligence in clinical practice: A systematic review of China's experiences.Digital healthReview
- Evaluating the quality of expert-trained generative artificial intelligence when answering tracheostomy-related questions.Anaesthesia reportsArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The release of ChatGPT for general use in 2023 by OpenAI has significantly expanded the possible applications of generative artificial intelligence in the healthcare sector, particularly in terms of information retrieval by patients, medical and nursing students, and healthcare personnel. Objective: To compare the performance of ChatGPT-3.5 and ChatGPT-4.0 to clinical nurses on answering questions about tracheostomy care, as well as to determine whether using different prompts to pre-define the scope of the ChatGPT affects the accuracy of their responses. Design: Cross-sectional study. Setting: The data collected from the ChatGPT was collected using the ChatGPT-3.5 and 4.0 using access provided by the University of Hong Kong. The data from the clinical nurses working in mainland China was collected using the Qualtrics survey program. Participants: No participants were needed for collecting the ChatGPT responses. A total of 272 clinical nurses, with 98.5 % of them working in tertiary care hospitals in mainland China, were recruited using a snowball sampling approach. Method: We used 43 tracheostomy care-related questions in a multiple-choice format to evaluate the performance of ChatGPT-3.5, ChatGPT-4.0, and clinical nurses. ChatGPT-3.5 and GPT-4.0 were both queried three times with the same questions by different prompts: no prompt, patient-friendly prompt, and act-as-nurse prompt. All responses were independently graded by two qualified otorhinolaryngology nurses on a 3-point accuracy scale (correct, partially correct, and incorrect). The Chi-squared test and Fisher exact test with post-hoc Bonferroni adjustment were used to assess the differences in performance between the three groups, as well as the differences in accuracy between different prompts. Results: ChatGPT-4.0 showed significantly higher accuracy, with 64.3 % of responses rated as 'correct', compared to 60.5 % in ChatGPT-3.5 and 36.7 % in clinical nurses ( Conclusion: ChatGPT may serve as a complementary medical information tool for patients and physicians to improve knowledge in tracheostomy care. Tweetable abstract: ChatGPT-4.0 can answer tracheostomy care questions better than most clinical nurses. There is no reason nurses should not be using it.
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.