ArticleJSES international2024
Comparison of ChatGPT versions in informing patients with rotator cuff injuries.
Article in JSES international, 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.
- The Use of Chat-GPT 5.2 by Patients Affected by Rotator Cuff Tears Leads to Inaccurate Diagnosis and Treatment Suggestions: A Study by SICSeG (Italian Society of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery).Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- The Performance of AI in Dermatology Exams: The Exam Success and Limits of ChatGPT.Journal of cosmetic dermatology · 2025Article
- Can popular AI large language models provide reliable answers to frequently asked questions about rotator cuff tears?JSES international · 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
Background: The aim of this study is to evaluate whether Chat Generative Pretrained Transformer (ChatGPT) can be recommended as a resource for informing patients planning rotator cuff repairs, and to assess the differences between ChatGPT 3.5 and 4.0 versions in terms of information content and readability. Methods: In August 2023, 13 commonly asked questions by patients with rotator cuff disease were posed to ChatGPT 3.5 and ChatGPT 4 programs using different internet protocol computers by 3 experienced surgeons in rotator cuff surgery. After converting the answers of both versions into text, the quality and readability of the answers were examined. Results: The average Journal of the American Medical Association score for both versions was 0, and the average DISCERN score was 61.6. A statistically significant and strong correlation was found between ChatGPT 3.5 and 4.0 DISCERN scores. There was excellent agreement in DISCERN scores for both versions among the 3 evaluators. ChatGPT 3.5 was found to be less readable than ChatGPT 4.0. Conclusion: The information provided by the ChatGPT conversational system was evaluated as of high quality, but there were significant shortcomings in terms of reliability due to the lack of citations. Despite the ChatGPT 4.0 version having higher readability scores, both versions were considered difficult to read.
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.