ArticleJournal of hand surgery global online2025
Leveraging ChatGPT to Produce Patient Education Materials for Common Hand Conditions.
Article in Journal of hand surgery global online, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
14 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- "First, do no harm" in the digital era: examining the practicality of the European Health Data Space proposal and ethical implications of artificial intelligence: A systematic literature review.BMC medical ethics · 2026Pooled it
- Comparative Analysis of Readability Levels of Hand Surgery Patient Information on the ASSH Website and Artificial Intelligence.Hand (New York, N.Y.) · 2026Article
- Customized Education Sheets Generated by ChatGPT Improve Parental Visit Satisfaction and Procedural Knowledge Prior to Pediatric Cardiac Catheterization.Pediatric cardiology · 2026Article
- Assessment of AI-Generated Patient Education Materials for Bladder Training and Pelvic Floor Muscle Therapy: Comparison with an International Society Leaflet.International urogynecology journal · 2026Article
- Evaluating the Use of Large Language Models in Improving the Readability of Online Patient Education Materials for Peripheral Nerve Surgery.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 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
- Feasibility of a multi-metric framework for evaluating patient-facing AI communication in cosmetic dentistry: an exploratory proof-of-concept study.Frontiers in oral health · 2026Article
- Challenges of using generative artificial intelligence for diabetes patient education: a cross-platform analysis of the quality, readability, and actionability of text generated by large language models.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
- Challenges of using generative AI for patient education in chronic heart failure: an evaluation of content quality, readability, and actionability in cross-platform LLM-generated texts.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
- Limitations of Artificial Intelligence Generated Images for Hand Surgery Patient Education.Journal of hand surgery global online · 2025Article
- Artificial Intelligence Can Answer Postoperative Questions About Distal Radius Fractures-But Can Patients Understand the Answers?Journal of hand surgery global online · 2025Article
- Refining patient education on autologous chondrocyte implantation for chondral lesions of the knee: A fine-tuned ChatGPT-4o model improves readability and quality.Journal of experimental orthopaedics · 2025Article
- Evaluating ChatGPT's Educational Suitability for Patient Primary Care Queries.PRiMER (Leawood, Kan.) · 2025Article
- ChatGPT-4o is Not a Reliable Study Source for Orthopaedic Surgery Residents.JB & JS open accessReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: Many adults in the United States possess basic or below basic health literacy skills, making it essential for patient education materials (PEMs) to be presented at or below a sixth-grade reading level. We evaluate the readability of PEMs generated by ChatGPT 3.5 and 4.0 for common hand conditions. Methods: We used Chat Generative Pre-Trained Transformer (ChatGPT) 3.5 and 4.0 to generate PEMs for 50 common hand pathologies. Two consistent questions were asked to minimize variability: 1. "Please explain [Condition] to a patient at a sixth-grade reading level, including details on anatomy, symptoms, doctors' examination, and treatment (both surgical and nonsurgical)." 2. "Create a detailed patient information sheet for the general patient population at a sixth-grade reading level explaining [Condition], including points such as anatomy, symptoms, physical examination, and treatment (both surgical and nonsurgical)." Before asking the second question, a priming phase was conducted where ChatGPT 3.5 and 4.0 were presented with a text sample written at a sixth-grade reading level and informed that this was the desired output level. Multiple readability tests were used to evaluate the output, with a consensus reading level created from the results of all eight readability scores. Statistical analyses were performed using SAS 9.4. Results: ChatGPT 4.0 successfully produced 28% of its responses at the appropriate reading level following the priming phase, compared to none by ChatGPT 3.5. ChatGPT 4.0 showed superior performance across all readability metrics. Conclusions: ChatGPT 4.0 is a more effective tool than ChatGPT 3.5 for generating PEMs at a sixth-grade reading level for common hand conditions. Clinical relevance: The results suggest that Artificial Intelligence could significantly enhance patient education and health literacy with further refinement.
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.