ArticleOTO open
ChatGPT Responses to Frequently Asked Questions on Ménière's Disease: A Comparison to Clinical Practice Guideline Answers.
Article in OTO open. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Artificial Intelligence Models for Dysphonia Patient Education.Otolaryngology--head and neck surgery : official journal of American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery · 2025Article
- Applications of Natural Language Processing in Otolaryngology: A Scoping Review.The Laryngoscope · 2025Article
- Evaluating ChatGPT's Concordance with Clinical Guidelines of Ménière's Disease in Chinese.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Evaluation of Large Language Models' Concordance With Guidelines on Olfaction.Laryngoscope investigative otolaryngology · 2025Article
- Assessing the adherence of large language models to clinical practice guidelines in Chinese medicine: a content analysis.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2025Article
- Assessing Chat Generative Pretrained Transformer-4's clinical utility in acute compartment syndrome: a comprehensive evaluation of accuracy, completeness, and readability.Revista da Associacao Medica Brasileira (1992) · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: Evaluate the quality of responses from Chat Generative Pre-Trained Transformer (ChatGPT) models compared to the answers for "Frequently Asked Questions" (FAQs) from the American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery (AAO-HNS) Clinical Practice Guidelines (CPG) for Ménière's disease (MD). Study Design: Comparative analysis. Setting: The AAO-HNS CPG for MD includes FAQs that clinicians can give to patients for MD-related questions. The ability of ChatGPT to properly educate patients regarding MD is unknown. Methods: ChatGPT-3.5 and 4.0 were each prompted with 16 questions from the MD FAQs. Each response was rated in terms of (1) comprehensiveness, (2) extensiveness, (3) presence of misleading information, and (4) quality of resources. Readability was assessed using Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level (FKGL) and Flesch Reading Ease Score (FRES). Results: ChatGPT-3.5 was comprehensive in 5 responses whereas ChatGPT-4.0 was comprehensive in 9 (31.3% vs 56.3%, Conclusion: While ChatGPT-4.0 had significantly better resource reporting, both models have room for improvement in being more comprehensive, more readable, and less misleading for patients.
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.