ArticleIndian journal of anaesthesia2024
Comparing patient education tools for chronic pain medications: Artificial intelligence chatbot versus traditional patient information leaflets.
Article in Indian journal of anaesthesia, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- The applications of ChatGPT and other large language models in anesthesiology and critical care: a systematic review.Canadian journal of anaesthesia = Journal canadien d'anesthesie · 2025Pooled it
- Applications of generative artificial intelligence in chronic pain: a scoping review.Journal of anesthesia · 2026Review
- Evaluation of large language model responses to patient questions on oral anticoagulant therapy: a comparative expert assessment.Exploratory research in clinical and social pharmacy · 2026Article
- Assessing ChatGPT vs. evidence-based online responses for polycystic ovary syndrome self-management and education: an international cross-sectional blinded survey of healthcare professionals.Frontiers in digital health · 2025Article
- Assessing the validity of ChatGPT-4o and Google Gemini Advanced when responding to frequently asked questions in endodontics.Journal of applied oral science : revista FOB · 2025Article
- Enhancing patient education with ChatGPT: Critical insights and future directions.Indian journal of anaesthesia · 2024Article
- Patient education tools for chronic pain medications: Artificial intelligence chatbot versus traditional patient information leaflets.Indian journal of anaesthesia · 2024Article
- Patient education tools for chronic pain medications, AI versus traditional PILs - Clarifications.Indian journal of anaesthesia · 2024Article
- Article
- Development, validation, and usefulness of patient information leaflet for women undergoing Caesarean section.Saudi journal of anaesthesiaArticle
- Impact of Paper Information Leaflets on Dental Anxiety and Well-Being in Czech Patients: A Randomized Clinical Trial.Journal of International Society of Preventive & Community DentistryArticle
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 and Aims: Artificial intelligence (AI) chatbots like Conversational Generative Pre-trained Transformer (ChatGPT) have recently created much buzz, especially regarding patient education. Such informed patients understand and adhere to the management and get involved in shared decision making. The accuracy and understandability of the generated educational material are prime concerns. Thus, we compared ChatGPT with traditional patient information leaflets (PILs) about chronic pain medications. Methods: Patients' frequently asked questions were generated from PILs available on the official websites of the British Pain Society (BPS) and the Faculty of Pain Medicine. Eight blinded annexures were prepared for evaluation, consisting of traditional PILs from the BPS and AI-generated patient information materials structured similar to PILs by ChatGPT. The authors performed a comparative analysis to assess materials' readability, emotional tone, accuracy, actionability, and understandability. Readability was measured using Flesch Reading Ease (FRE), Gunning Fog Index (GFI), and Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level (FKGL). Sentiment analysis determined emotional tone. An expert panel evaluated accuracy and completeness. Actionability and understandability were assessed with the Patient Education Materials Assessment Tool. Results: Traditional PILs generally exhibited higher readability ( Conclusion: While AI chatbots offer efficient information delivery, ensuring accuracy and readability, patient-centeredness remains crucial. It is imperative to balance innovation with evidence-based practice.
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.