ArticleIndian journal of otolaryngology and head and neck surgery : official publication of the Association of Otolaryngologists of India2025
Comparative Analysis of Artificial Intelligence Platforms in Generating Post-Operative Instructions for Rhinologic Surgery.
Article in Indian journal of otolaryngology and head and neck surgery : official publication of the Association of Otolaryngologists of India, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- A Clinician-Centered Evaluation Framework for Large Language Models in Patient Education: Integrating the Technology Acceptance Model and Medical Condition Regard Scale.JMIR formative research · 2026Article
- Comparative analysis of artificial intelligence platforms in generating Post-Operative instructions for endoscopic transnasal skull base surgery.European archives of oto-rhino-laryngology : official journal of the European Federation of Oto-Rhino-Laryngological Societies (EUFOS) : affiliated with the German Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology - Head and Neck Surgery · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Recently, artificial intelligence (AI) platforms such as ChatGPT and Google Gemini have progressed at a rapid pace. To allow for optimal medical outcomes and patient safety, it is crucial that patients have clearly written post-operative instructions. Patients are increasingly turning to AI platforms for medical information. Our objective was to evaluate the ability of ChatGPT versus Gemini to develop accurate and understandable post-operative instructions for patients undergoing endoscopic sinus surgery (ESS). Postoperative instructions on ESS, balloon sinuplasty, Caldwell Luc surgery, and septoplasty were generated using ChatGPT and Gemini. Measures of readability were calculated. The Patient Education Materials Assessment Tool was utilized to determine Understandability and Actionability. ChatGPT and Gemini were capable of generating understandable post-operative instructions but were poor for actionability and readability. While AI has a promising ability to generate accessible medical information, patients should be aware of its drawbacks especially when seeking postoperative instructions.
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.