ArticleCureus2024
Enhancing Musculoskeletal Injection Safety: Evaluating Checklists Generated by Artificial Intelligence and Revising the Preformed Checklist.
Article in Cureus, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Referential hallucination and clinical reliability in large language models: a comparative analysis using regenerative medicine guidelines for chronic pain.Rheumatology international · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background Musculoskeletal disorders are a significant global health issue, necessitating advanced management strategies such as intra-articular and extra-articular injections to alleviate pain, inflammation, and mobility challenges. As the adoption of these interventions by physicians grows, the importance of robust safety protocols becomes paramount. This study evaluates the effectiveness of conversational artificial intelligence (AI), particularly versions 3.5 and 4 of Chat Generative Pre-trained Transformer (ChatGPT), in creating patient safety checklists for managing musculoskeletal injections to enhance the preparation of safety documentation. Methodology A quantitative analysis was conducted to evaluate AI-generated safety checklists against a preformed checklist adapted from reputable medical sources. Adherence of the generated checklists to the preformed checklist was calculated and classified. The Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used to assess the performance differences between ChatGPT versions 3.5 and 4. Results ChatGPT-4 showed superior adherence to the preformed checklist compared to ChatGPT-3.5, with both versions classified as very good in safety protocol creation. Although no significant differences were present in the sign-in and sign-out parts of the checklists of both versions, ChatGPT-4 had significantly higher scores in the procedure planning part (p = 0.007), and its overall performance was also higher (p < 0.001). Subsequently, the preformed checklist was revised to incorporate new contributions from ChatGPT. Conclusions ChatGPT, especially version 4, proved effective in generating patient safety checklists for musculoskeletal injections, highlighting the potential of AI to streamline clinical practices. Further enhancements are necessary to fully meet the medical standards.
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.