ArticleOTO open
Enhancing Multilingual Patient Education: ChatGPT's Accuracy and Readability for SSNHL Queries in English and Spanish.
Article in OTO open. 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.
- Audiologist-Guided Multimodal AI for Pure-Tone Audiometry and Tympanometry Interpretation and Reporting.Journal of medical systems · 2026Article
- Autism-Related Information on Websites and General-Purpose Artificial Intelligence Chatbots: Comparative, Bilingual Study.JMIR formative research · 2026Article
- Comparative Analysis of Generative Artificial Intelligence Systems in Solving Clinical Pharmacy Problems: Mixed Methods Study.JMIR medical informatics · 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: This study investigates ChatGPT's accuracy, readability, understandability, and actionability in responding to patient queries on sudden sensorineural hearing loss (SSNHL) in English and Spanish, when compared to Google responses. The objective is to address concerns regarding its proficiency in addressing medical inquiries when presented in a language divergent from its primary programming. Study Design: Observational. Setting: Virtual environment. Methods: Using ChatGPT 3.5 and Google, questions from the AAO-HNSF guidelines were presented in English and Spanish. Responses were graded by 2 otolaryngologists proficient in both languages using a 4-point Likert scale and the PEMAT-P tool. To ensure uniform application of the Likert scale, a third independent evaluator reviewed the consistency in grading. Readability was evaluated using 3 different tools specific to each language. IBM SPSS Version 29 was used for statistical analysis using one-way analysis of variance. Results: Across both languages, the responses displayed a native-level language proficiency. Accuracy was comparable between sources and languages. Google's Spanish responses had better readability (effect size 0.35, Conclusion: ChatGPT offers patients comprehensive and guideline-conforming answers to SSNHL patient medical queries in the 2 most spoken languages in the United States. However, improvements in its readability and understandability are warranted for more accessible patient education.
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.