ArticleSexual medicine2024
Evaluation of information accuracy and clarity: ChatGPT responses to the most frequently asked questions about premature ejaculation.
Article in Sexual medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 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
19 citing papers in PubMed.
- Progress in the research of artificial intelligence in andrology: a narrative review.Translational andrology and urology · 2026Review
- Are AI chatbots ready for chikungunya public education? Evidence on validity, reliability, and readability.BMC public health · 2026Article
- Utilization of artificial intelligence in Men's Health: Opportunities for innovation and quality improvement.International journal of impotence research · 2026Review
- A systematic review of the limitations of large language models in generating healthcare content.PLOS digital health · 2026Article
- Does the Quality and Readability of Information Related to Varicocele Obtained from ChatGPT 4.0 Remain Consistent Across Different Models of Inquiry?The world journal of men's health · 2026Article
- Evaluating the quality and readability of AI-generated information on adenomyosis: a comparative analysis of ChatGPT and deepseek regarding query-model consistency.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
- Impacts of Sexual and Reproductive Health and Rights Misinformation in Digital Spaces on Human Rights Protection and Promotion: Scoping Review.JMIR infodemiology · 2025Article
- Readability and information quality of LLM-Generated HIV content: a methodological content evaluation.BMC infectious diseases · 2025Article
- Evaluation of the Quality and Readability of ChatGPT Responses to Toothache Queries: A Study Based on Google Trends.Cureus · 2025Article
- Chatbots' performance in premature ejaculation questions: a comparative analysis of reliability, readability, and understandability.International journal of impotence research · 2025Article
- Artificial Intelligence in Patient Education for Androgenetic Alopecia: A Comparative Study of ChatGPT, Gemini, and Deepseek R1.Dermatology practical & conceptual · 2025Article
- What Large Language Models offer about Familial Mediterranean Fever: An Analysis of Quality, Readability, Completeness, and Accuracy.Mediterranean journal of rheumatology · 2025Article
- Evaluating AI chatbots in penis enhancement information: a comparative analysis of readability, reliability and quality.International journal of impotence research · 2025Article
- AI Chatbots as Sources of STD Information: A Study on Reliability and Readability.Journal of medical systems · 2025Article
- How Useful are Current Chatbots Regarding Urology Patient Information? Comparison of the Ten Most Popular Chatbots' Responses About Female Urinary Incontinence.Journal of medical systems · 2024Article
- Assessment of readability, reliability, and quality of ChatGPT®, BARD®, Gemini®, Copilot®, Perplexity® responses on palliative care.Medicine · 2024Observational
- Article
- Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Premature ejaculation (PE) is the most prevalent sexual dysfunction in men, and like many diseases and conditions, patients use Internet sources like ChatGPT, which is a popular artificial intelligence-based language model, for queries about this andrological disorder. Aim: The objective of this research was to evaluate the quality, readability, and understanding of texts produced by ChatGPT in response to frequently requested inquiries on PE. Methods: In this study we used Google Trends to identify the most frequently searched phrases related to PE. Subsequently, the discovered keywords were methodically entered into ChatGPT, and the resulting replies were assessed for quality using the Ensuring Quality Information for Patients (EQIP) program. The produced texts were assessed for readability using the Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level (FKGL), Flesch Reading Ease Score (FRES), and DISCERN metrics. Outcomes: This investigation has identified substantial concerns about the quality of texts produced by ChatGPT, highlighting severe problems with reading and understanding. Results: The mean EQIP score for the texts was determined to be 45.93 ± 4.34, while the FRES was 15.8 ± 8.73. Additionally, the FKGL score was computed to be 15.68 ± 1.67 and the DISCERN score was 38.1 ± 3.78. The comparatively low average EQIP and DISCERN scores suggest that improvements are required to increase the quality and dependability of the presented information. In addition, the FKGL scores indicate a significant degree of linguistic intricacy, requiring a level of knowledge comparable to about 14 to 15 years of formal schooling in order to understand. The texts about treatment, which are the most frequently searched items, are more difficult to understand compared to other texts about other categories. Clinical Implications: The results of this research suggest that compared to texts on other topics the PE texts produced by ChatGPT exhibit a higher degree of complexity, which exceeds the recommended reading threshold for effective health communication. Currently, ChatGPT is cannot be considered a substitute for comprehensive medical consultations. Strengths and Limitations: This study is to our knowledge the first reported research investigating the quality and comprehensibility of information generated by ChatGPT in relation to frequently requested queries about PE. The main limitation is that the investigation included only the first 25 popular keywords in English. Conclusion: ChatGPT is incapable of replacing the need for thorough medical consultations.
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.