Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39198303›Full record

ArticleEuropean archives of oto-rhino-laryngology : official journal of the European Federation of Oto-Rhino-Laryngological Societies (EUFOS) : affiliated with the German Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology - Head and Neck Surgery2025

Patient education resources for oral mucositis: a google search and ChatGPT analysis.

Nathaniel Hunter, David Allen, Daniel Xiao, Madisyn Cox, Kunal Jain

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in European archives of oto-rhino-laryngology : official journal of the European Federation of Oto-Rhino-Laryngological Societies (EUFOS) : affiliated with the German Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology - Head and Neck Surgery, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Nathaniel HunterMcGovern Medical School, The University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, Houston, TX, USA.
David AllenDepartment of Otorhinolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, The University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, Houston, TX, USA. David.Allen@uth.tmc.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6727-4378
Daniel XiaoMcGovern Medical School, The University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, Houston, TX, USA.
Madisyn CoxMcGovern Medical School, The University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, Houston, TX, USA.
Kunal JainDepartment of Otorhinolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, The University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, Houston, TX, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeOral mucositis affects 90% of patients receiving chemotherapy or radiation for head and neck malignancies. Many patients use the internet to learn about their condition and treatments; however, the quality of online resources is not guaranteed. Our objective was to determine the most common Google searches related to "oral mucositis" and assess the quality and readability of available resources compared to ChatGPT-generated responses.

methodsData related to Google searches for "oral mucositis" were analyzed. People Also Ask (PAA) questions (generated by Google) related to searches for "oral mucositis" were documented. Google resources were rated on quality, understandability, ease of reading, and reading grade level using the Journal of the American Medical Association benchmark criteria, Patient Education Materials Assessment Tool, Flesch Reading Ease Score, and Flesh-Kincaid Grade Level, respectively. ChatGPT-generated responses to the most popular PAA questions were rated using identical metrics.

resultsGoogle search popularity for "oral mucositis" has significantly increased since 2004. 78% of the Google resources answered the associated PAA question, and 6% met the criteria for universal readability. 100% of the ChatGPT-generated responses answered the prompt, and 20% met the criteria for universal readability when asked to write for the appropriate audience.

conclusionMost resources provided by Google do not meet the criteria for universal readability. When prompted specifically, ChatGPT-generated responses were consistently more readable than Google resources. After verification of accuracy by healthcare professionals, ChatGPT could be a reasonable alternative to generate universally readable patient education resources.

Indexed as

Head and Neck NeoplasmsInternetPatient Education as TopicSearch EngineStomatitisComprehensionConsumer Health InformationGenerative Artificial IntelligenceHumansArtificial intelligenceGoogle analyticsHead and neck cancerInformation qualityOral mucositisPatient education

Identifiers

PMID39198303

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.