Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39866564›Full record

ArticlePeerJ2025

Assessing the readability, quality and reliability of responses produced by ChatGPT, Gemini, and Perplexity regarding most frequently asked keywords about low back pain.

Erkan Ozduran, Volkan Hancı, Yüksel Erkin, İlhan Celil Özbek, Vugar Abdulkerimov

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PeerJ, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 35 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
35citing 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

35 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Observational
  3. Quality and Readability of Websites on Tongue Base Procedures for Pediatric Obstructive Sleep Apnea.World journal of otorhinolaryngology - head and neck surgery · 2026
    Article
  4. AI in respiratory care: findings from the GOLD report.Journal of translational medicine · 2026
    Article
  5. Performance of large language models in interpreting evidence-based clinical guidelines for lumbar disc herniation with radiculopathy.European spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society · 2026
    Article
  6. Quality and reliability of YouTube videos on breast engorgement.International breastfeeding journal · 2026
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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.

Erkan OzduranPhysical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Pain Medicine, Sivas Numune Hospital, Sivas, Turkey.ORCID 0000-0003-3425-313X
Volkan HancıAnesthesiology and Reanimation, Critical Care Medicine, Dokuz Eylül University, Izmir, Turkey.ORCID 0000-0002-2227-194X
Yüksel ErkinAnesthesiology and Reanimation, Pain Medicine, Dokuz Eylül University, Izmir, Turkey.
İlhan Celil ÖzbekPhysical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Health Science University, Derince Education and Research Hospital, Kocaeli, Turkey.ORCID 0000-0003-0508-8868
Vugar AbdulkerimovAnesthesiology and Reanimation, Central Clinical Hospital, Baku, Azerbaijan.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Patients who are informed about the causes, pathophysiology, treatment and prevention of a disease are better able to participate in treatment procedures in the event of illness. Artificial intelligence (AI), which has gained popularity in recent years, is defined as the study of algorithms that provide machines with the ability to reason and perform cognitive functions, including object and word recognition, problem solving and decision making. This study aimed to examine the readability, reliability and quality of responses to frequently asked keywords about low back pain (LBP) given by three different AI-based chatbots (ChatGPT, Perplexity and Gemini), which are popular applications in online information presentation today. Methods: All three AI chatbots were asked the 25 most frequently used keywords related to LBP determined with the help of Google Trend. In order to prevent possible bias that could be created by the sequential processing of keywords in the answers given by the chatbots, the study was designed by providing input from different users (EO, VH) for each keyword. The readability of the responses given was determined with the Simple Measure of Gobbledygook (SMOG), Flesch Reading Ease Score (FRES) and Gunning Fog (GFG) readability scores. Quality was assessed using the Global Quality Score (GQS) and the Ensuring Quality Information for Patients (EQIP) score. Reliability was assessed by determining with DISCERN and Journal of American Medical Association (JAMA) scales. Results: The first three keywords detected as a result of Google Trend search were "Lower Back Pain", "ICD 10 Low Back Pain", and "Low Back Pain Symptoms". It was determined that the readability of the responses given by all AI chatbots was higher than the recommended 6th grade readability level ( Conclusion: It has been determined that the answers given by AI chatbots to keywords about LBP are difficult to read and have low reliability and quality assessment. It is clear that when new chatbots are introduced, they can provide better guidance to patients with increased clarity and text quality. This study can provide inspiration for future studies on improving the algorithms and responses of AI chatbots.

Indexed as

Artificial IntelligenceComprehensionLow Back PainGenerative Artificial IntelligenceHumansInternetReproducibility of ResultsArtificial intelligenceChatGPTGeminiLow back painOnline medical informationPerplexity

Identifiers

PMID39866564
PMCPMC11760201

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.