ArticleCureus2024
Does the Information Quality of ChatGPT Meet the Requirements of Orthopedics and Trauma Surgery?
Article in Cureus, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 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
10 citing papers in PubMed.
- Evaluation of ChatGPT-5 responses to patient-centered questions on stromal vascular fraction for knee osteoarthritis: fair to good quality and content.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2026Article
- Can AI write your code? A case study of chatgpt's statistical coding capabilities for quantitative research.Health economics review · 2026Article
- Evaluation of the Quality and Reliability of ChatGPT-4's Responses on Allergen Immunotherapy Using Validated Instruments for Health Information Quality Assessment.Clinical and translational allergy · 2025Article
- Generative artificial intelligence, large language models and ChatGPT in musculoskeletal Oncology: Current applications and future potential.Journal of clinical orthopaedics and trauma · 2025Article
- A structured evaluation of LLM-generated step-by-step instructions in cadaveric brachial plexus dissection.BMC medical education · 2025Article
- Preparing for Vascular Surgery Board Certification: A Comparative Study Using Large Language Models.Cureus · 2025Article
- Evaluation of ChatGPT Responses About Sexual Activity After Total Hip Arthroplasty: A Comparative Study with Observers of Different Experience Levels.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- Can ChatGPT pass the Turkish Orthopedics and Traumatology Board Examination? Turkish orthopedic surgeons versus artificial intelligence.Ulusal travma ve acil cerrahi dergisi = Turkish journal of trauma & emergency surgery : TJTES · 2025Observational
- Does ChatGPT help patients access reliable and comprehensive information about psoriasis?Proceedings (Baylor University. Medical Center) · 2025Article
- 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
backgroundThe integration of artificial intelligence (AI) in medicine, particularly through AI-based language models like ChatGPT, offers a promising avenue for enhancing patient education and healthcare delivery. This study aims to evaluate the quality of medical information provided by Chat Generative Pre-trained Transformer (ChatGPT) regarding common orthopedic and trauma surgical procedures, assess its limitations, and explore its potential as a supplementary source for patient education.
methodsUsing the GPT-3.5-Turbo version of ChatGPT, simulated patient information was generated for 20 orthopedic and trauma surgical procedures. The study utilized standardized information forms as a reference for evaluating ChatGPT's responses. The accuracy and quality of the provided information were assessed using a modified DISCERN instrument, and a global medical assessment was conducted to categorize the information's usefulness and reliability.
resultsChatGPT mentioned an average of 47% of relevant keywords across procedures, with a variance in the mention rate between 30.5% and 68.6%. The average modified DISCERN (mDISCERN) score was 2.4 out of 5, indicating a moderate to low quality of information. None of the ChatGPT-generated fact sheets were rated as "very useful," with 45% deemed "somewhat useful," 35% "not useful," and 20% classified as "dangerous." A positive correlation was found between higher mDISCERN scores and better physician ratings, suggesting that information quality directly impacts perceived utility.
conclusionWhile AI-based language models like ChatGPT hold significant promise for medical education and patient care, the current quality of information provided in the field of orthopedics and trauma surgery is suboptimal. Further development and refinement of AI sources and algorithms are necessary to improve the accuracy and reliability of medical information. This study underscores the need for ongoing research and development in AI applications in healthcare, emphasizing the critical role of accurate, high-quality information in patient education and informed consent processes.
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.