ArticlePeerJ2025
Assessing the readability, quality and reliability of responses produced by ChatGPT, Gemini, and Perplexity regarding most frequently asked keywords about low back pain.
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.
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
35 citing papers in PubMed.
- AI-generated patient information leaflets for oral anticoagulants: quality, usability, readability, and reproducibility compared with FDA-referenced materials.International journal of clinical pharmacy · 2026Article
- A patient-derived benchmark for evaluating large language models in connective tissue diseases: blinded multi-stakeholder assessment and guideline comparison.Rheumatology international · 2026Observational
- Quality and Readability of Websites on Tongue Base Procedures for Pediatric Obstructive Sleep Apnea.World journal of otorhinolaryngology - head and neck surgery · 2026Article
- AI in respiratory care: findings from the GOLD report.Journal of translational medicine · 2026Article
- 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 · 2026Article
- Quality and reliability of YouTube videos on breast engorgement.International breastfeeding journal · 2026Article
- Investigating the Readability and Quality of AI Systems to Trending Questions About Food Poisoning.Journal of food science · 2026Article
- Comparing the Readability and Content Quality of Online Patient Education Materials and ChatGPT-Generated Patient Education Materials for Breast Cancer Surgery and Reconstruction.Archives of plastic surgery · 2026Article
- Evaluating YouTube content on appendicitis: a comparative analysis of Arabic and English videos in terms of quality.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Evaluating Artificial Intelligence-Generated Responses to Patient Questions Regarding Orthobiologic Injections.Orthopaedic journal of sports medicine · 2026Article
- Article
- Benchmarking publicly accessible large language models for English-language patient-facing acute pancreatitis information: a cross-sectional study of quality, transparency, and readability.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
- The readability and quality paradox: Comparing ChatGPT, Gemini, and Perplexity outputs on pediatric chest pain queries.PloS one · 2026Article
- Artificial Intelligence Chatbots as Sources of Cancer Pain Information: A Comparative Evaluation of Quality, Transparency, and Readability.Journal of pain research · 2026Article
- Evaluating the quality of online patient education materials for gastric adenocarcinoma.Frontiers in digital health · 2026Article
- Information quality, readability, and empathy of AI-generated public mental health information: a comparative evaluation of eight large language models.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
- Assessing large language model responses to pediatric depression FAQs: a cross-sectional study on readability, accuracy, and sentiment.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2026Article
- Assessment of brachial plexus and upper-extremity peripheral nerve injuries at the anatomical level using multimodal generative models.Frontiers in surgery · 2026Article
- Article
- Article
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
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
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.