Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39323727›Full record

ArticleClinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.)2024

Comparing the Ability of Google and ChatGPT to Accurately Respond to Oculoplastics-Related Patient Questions and Generate Customized Oculoplastics Patient Education Materials.

Samuel A Cohen, Nikhita Yadlapalli, Jonathan D Tijerina, Chrisfouad R Alabiad, Jessica R Chang, Benyam Kinde, Nicholas R Mahoney, Kelsey A Roelofs, Julie A Woodward, Andrea L Kossler

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. 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

10 authors.

Samuel A CohenDepartment of Ophthalmology, Stein Eye Institute at University of California Los Angeles David Geffen School of Medicine, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
Nikhita YadlapalliDepartment of Ophthalmology, FIU Herbert Wertheim College of Medicine, Miami, FL, USA.
Jonathan D TijerinaDepartment of Ophthalmology, Bascom Palmer Eye Institute at University of Miami Miller School of Medicine, Miami, FL, USA.
Chrisfouad R AlabiadDepartment of Ophthalmology, Bascom Palmer Eye Institute at University of Miami Miller School of Medicine, Miami, FL, USA.
Jessica R ChangDepartment of Ophthalmology, USC Roski Eye Institute at University of Southern California Keck School of Medicine, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
Benyam KindeDepartment of Ophthalmology, Byers Eye Institute at Stanford University School of Medicine, Palo Alto, CA, USA.
Nicholas R MahoneyDepartment of Ophthalmology, Wilmer Eye Institute at Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA.
Kelsey A RoelofsDepartment of Ophthalmology, Stein Eye Institute at University of California Los Angeles David Geffen School of Medicine, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
Julie A WoodwardDepartment of Ophthalmology, Duke Eye Center at Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, NC, USA.
Andrea L KosslerDepartment of Ophthalmology, Byers Eye Institute at Stanford University School of Medicine, Palo Alto, CA, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-3110-1210

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Purpose: To compare the accuracy and readability of responses to oculoplastics patient questions provided by Google and ChatGPT. Additionally, to assess the ability of ChatGPT to create customized patient education materials. Methods: We executed a Google search to identify the 3 most frequently asked patient questions (FAQs) related to 10 oculoplastics conditions. FAQs were entered into both the Google search engine and the ChatGPT tool and responses were recorded. Responses were graded for readability using five validated readability indices and for accuracy by six oculoplastics surgeons. ChatGPT was instructed to create patient education materials at various reading levels for 8 oculoplastics procedures. The accuracy and readability of ChatGPT-generated procedural explanations were assessed. Results: ChatGPT responses to patient FAQs were written at a significantly higher average grade level than Google responses (grade 15.6 vs 10.0, p < 0.001). ChatGPT responses (93% accuracy) were significantly more accurate (p < 0.001) than Google responses (78% accuracy) and were preferred by expert panelists (79%). ChatGPT accurately explained oculoplastics procedures at an above average reading level. When instructed to rewrite patient education materials at a lower reading level, grade level was reduced by approximately 4 (15.7 vs 11.7, respectively, p < 0.001) without sacrificing accuracy. Conclusion: ChatGPT has the potential to provide patients with accurate information regarding their oculoplastics conditions. ChatGPT may also be utilized by oculoplastic surgeons as an accurate tool to provide customizable patient education for patients with varying health literacy. A better understanding of oculoplastics conditions and procedures amongst patients can lead to informed eye care decisions.

Indexed as

accuracyChatGPTgoogleoculoplasticsreadability

Identifiers

PMID39323727
PMCPMC11423829

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.