ArticleArthroscopy, sports medicine, and rehabilitation2024
ChatGPT and Google Provide Mostly Excellent or Satisfactory Responses to the Most Frequently Asked Patient Questions Related to Rotator Cuff Repair.
Article in Arthroscopy, sports medicine, and rehabilitation, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Large language models in sports injury care: a comparative expert evaluation of GPT-4o and GPT-5.BMC sports science, medicine & rehabilitation · 2026Article
- Are artificial intelligence-generated recommendations clinically safe? Evaluation of thromboembolic prophylaxis advice after arthroplasty.Revista da Associacao Medica Brasileira (1992) · 2026Article
- Comparison of ChatGPT and Google in addressing patients' questions on robot-assisted total hip arthroplasty.Joint diseases and related surgery · 2026Article
- ChatGPT Can Provide Satisfactory Answers to Assessments of Mock Clinical Photos Following Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction and Rotator Cuff Repair.Arthroscopy, sports medicine, and rehabilitation · 2025Article
- ChatGPT-Generated Responses Across Orthopaedic Sports Medicine Surgery Vary in Accuracy, Quality, and Readability: A Systematic Review.Arthroscopy, sports medicine, and rehabilitation · 2025Review
- Can popular AI large language models provide reliable answers to frequently asked questions about rotator cuff tears?JSES international · 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: To assess the differences in frequently asked questions (FAQs) and responses related to rotator cuff surgery between Google and ChatGPT. Methods: Both Google and ChatGPT (version 3.5) were queried for the top 10 FAQs using the search term "rotator cuff repair." Questions were categorized according to Rothwell's classification. In addition to questions and answers for each website, the source that the answer was pulled from was noted and assigned a category (academic, medical practice, etc). Responses were also graded as "excellent response not requiring clarification" (1), "satisfactory requiring minimal clarification" (2), "satisfactory requiring moderate clarification" (3), or "unsatisfactory requiring substantial clarification" (4). Results: Overall, 30% of questions were similar between what Google and ChatGPT deemed to be the most FAQs. For questions from Google web search, most answers came from medical practices (40%). For ChatGPT, most answers were provided by academic sources (90%). For numerical questions, ChatGPT and Google provided similar responses for 30% of questions. For most of the questions, both Google and ChatGPT responses were either "excellent" or "satisfactory requiring minimal clarification." Google had 1 response rated as satisfactory requiring moderate clarification, whereas ChatGPT had 2 responses rated as unsatisfactory. Conclusions: Both Google and ChatGPT offer mostly excellent or satisfactory responses to the most FAQs regarding rotator cuff repair. However, ChatGPT may provide inaccurate or even fabricated answers and associated citations. Clinical Relevance: In general, the quality of online medical content is low. As artificial intelligence develops and becomes more widely used, it is important to assess the quality of the information patients are receiving from this technology.
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.