ArticleFrontiers in public health2024
Using Google web search to analyze and evaluate the application of ChatGPT in femoroacetabular impingement syndrome.
Article in Frontiers in public health, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- ChatGPT provides accurate and safe responses to patient questions on hip arthroscopy, while completeness remains variable: A systematic review and single-arm meta-analysis.Knee surgery, sports traumatology, arthroscopy : official journal of the ESSKA · 2026Pooled it
- The Reliability of Human Evaluation of Large Language Models in Health Care Settings: Scoping Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Article
- A comparative study of four large language models in treatment decision-making for Hip impingement syndrome based on real-world data.Frontiers in sports and active living · 2026Article
- Evaluating the reliability and clinical utility of artificial intelligence in first trimester prenatal screening and noninvasive prenatal testing.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Strategies for enhancing PHC accessibility through mobile and capsule clinics: a spatial location allocation study in China.BMC health services research · 2025Article
- Can Large Language Models Aid Caregivers of Pediatric Cancer Patients in Information Seeking? A Cross-Sectional Investigation.Cancer medicine · 2025Article
- The Impact of Google Search versus ChatGPT on Patient Understanding and Potential Adherence in PICC Line Care: A Comparative Analysis.Patient preference and adherence · 2025Article
- ChatGPT-4.0 vs. Google: Which Provides More Academic Answers to Patients' Questions on Arthroscopic Meniscus Repair?Cureus · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Chat Generative Pre-trained Transformer (ChatGPT) is a new machine learning tool that allows patients to access health information online, specifically compared to Google, the most commonly used search engine in the United States. Patients can use ChatGPT to better understand medical issues. This study compared the two search engines based on: (i) frequently asked questions (FAQs) about Femoroacetabular Impingement Syndrome (FAI), (ii) the corresponding answers to these FAQs, and (iii) the most FAQs yielding a numerical response. Purpose: To assess the suitability of ChatGPT as an online health information resource for patients by replicating their internet searches. Study design: Cross-sectional study. Methods: The same keywords were used to search the 10 most common questions about FAI on both Google and ChatGPT. The responses from both search engines were recorded and analyzed. Results: Of the 20 questions, 8 (40%) were similar. Among the 10 questions searched on Google, 7 were provided by a medical practice. For numerical questions, there was a notable difference in answers between Google and ChatGPT for 3 out of the top 5 most common questions (60%). Expert evaluation indicated that 67.5% of experts were satisfied or highly satisfied with the accuracy of ChatGPT's descriptions of both conservative and surgical treatment options for FAI. Additionally, 62.5% of experts were satisfied or highly satisfied with the safety of the information provided. Regarding the etiology of FAI, including cam and pincer impingements, 52.5% of experts expressed satisfaction or high satisfaction with ChatGPT's explanations. Overall, 62.5% of experts affirmed that ChatGPT could serve effectively as a reliable medical resource for initial information retrieval. Conclusion: This study confirms that ChatGPT, despite being a new tool, shows significant potential as a supplementary resource for health information on FAI. Expert evaluations commend its capacity to provide accurate and comprehensive responses, valued by medical professionals for relevance and safety. Nonetheless, continuous improvements in its medical content's depth and precision are recommended for ongoing reliability. While ChatGPT offers a promising alternative to traditional search engines, meticulous validation is imperative before it can be fully embraced as a trusted medical resource.
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.