Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39873458›Full record

ArticleUrology research & practice2025

Quality of Chatbot Responses to the Most Popular Questions Regarding Erectile Dysfunction.

İrfan Şafak Barlas, Lütfi Tunç

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Urology research & practice, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. 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

2 authors.

İrfan Şafak BarlasClinic of Urology, Ankara Acibadem Hospital, Ankara, Türkiye.
Lütfi TunçClinic of Urology, Ankara Acibadem Hospital, Ankara, Türkiye.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objective: Erectile dysfunction (ED) is a common cause of male sexual dysfunction. We aimed to evaluate the quality of ChatGPT and Gemini's responses to the most frequently asked questions about ED. Methods: This study was conducted as a cross-sectional, observational study. Google Trends was used to determine the most frequently asked questions on the internet. ChatGPT-3.5 and Gemini were compared for these chatbots' answers to the questions about ED. Two urologists with board certificates assessed the quality of responses using the Global Quality Score (GQS). Results: Fifteen questions about ED were included according to the Google Trends. ChatGPT was able to answer all the questions systematically, whereas Gemini could not answer two questions. Upon assessing the quality of the responses provided by both researchers with the GQS, it was observed that the frequency of low-quality responses from Gemini exceeded that of ChatGPT. The agreement between researchers was 92% for ChatGPT and 95% for Gemini. Conclusion: Despite the expeditious and comprehensive answers provided by chatbots, we identified inadequacies in their responses related to ED. In their current state, they cannot replace the patient-centered approach of healthcare professionals and require further development.

Indexed as

Artificial intelligenceChatbotChatGPTErectile dysfunctionGeminiGlobal Quality Score

Identifiers

PMID39873458
PMCPMC11883663

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.