ArticleUpdates in surgery2025
A cross-sectional study to evaluate responses generated by two AI software programs for common patient queries about laparoscopic repair of inguinal hernia.
Article in Updates in surgery, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study aimed to evaluate the quality and accuracy of responses provided by two user-interactive AI chatbots, namely ChatGPT and ChatSonic, in response to patient queries regarding laparoscopic repair of inguinal hernias, and additionally determine the suitability of these chatbots in addressing patient queries related to inguinal hernia repair. Ten questions regarding laparoscopic repair of inguinal hernias were developed and presented to ChatGPT 4.0 and ChatSonic. Responses were evaluated by two experienced surgeons blinded to the source, using the Global Quality Score (GQS) and modified DISCERN Score to gauge response quality and reliability. ChatGPT demonstrated high-quality responses (GQS = 4 & 5) for all ten questions according to one evaluator, and for seven out of ten questions according to the other. Similarly, ChatGPT showed high reliability (DISCERN = 4 & 5) for nine responses according to one evaluator, and for three responses according to the other, with only slight agreement between evaluators for both GQS (kappa = 0.20) and modified DISCERN scores (kappa = 0.08). ChatSonic also provided high-quality and reliable responses for a majority of questions, albeit to a lesser extent than ChatGPT, and both demonstrating limited concordance in responses (p > 0.05). Overall, Both ChatGPT and ChatSonic demonstrated potential utility in providing responses to patient queries about hernia surgery. However, due to inconsistencies in reliability and quality, ongoing refinement and validation of AI generated medical information remain necessary before widespread clinical adoption.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40042731What 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.