ArticleCureus2024
Can Generative Artificial Intelligence Enhance Health Literacy About Lateral Epicondylitis?
Article in Cureus, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- A comparative evaluation of the quality of responses provided by different large language model chatbots to frequently asked questions regarding nerve blocks.BMC anesthesiology · 2026Article
- Assessing the Quality and Readability of Online Patient Information for Common Proctological Conditions.Cureus · 2025Article
- Readability Metrics in Patient Education: Where Do We Innovate?Clinics and practice · 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionHealth literacy is a critical determinant of a patient's overall health status, and studies have demonstrated a consistent link between poor health literacy and negative health outcomes. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the National Institutes of Health (NIH) advise that patient educational materials (PEMs) should be written at an eighth-grade reading level or lower, matching the average reading level of adult Americans. The purpose of this study was to investigate the ability of generative artificial intelligence (AI) to edit PEMs from orthopaedic institutions to meet the CDC and NIH guidelines.
methodsPEMs about lateral epicondylitis (LE) from the top 25 ranked orthopaedic institutions from the 2022 U.S. News & World Report Best Hospitals Specialty Ranking were gathered. ChatGPT Plus (version 4.0) was then instructed to rewrite PEMs on LE from these institutions to comply with CDC and NIH-recommended guidelines. Readability scores were calculated for the original and rewritten PEMs, and paired t-tests were used to determine statistical significance.
resultsAnalysis of the original and edited PEMs about LE revealed significant reductions in reading grade level and word count of 3.70 ± 1.84 (p<0.001) and 346.72 ± 364.63 (p<0.001), respectively.
conclusionOur study demonstrated generative AI's ability to rewrite PEM about LE at a reading comprehension level that conforms to the CDC and NIH guidelines. Hospital administrators and orthopaedic surgeons should consider the findings of this study and the potential utility of artificial intelligence when crafting PEMs of their own.
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.