ArticleEuropean journal of orthopaedic surgery & traumatology : orthopedie traumatologie2025
Evaluation of the reliability, usefulness, quality and readability of ChatGPT's responses on Scoliosis.
Article in European journal of orthopaedic surgery & traumatology : orthopedie traumatologie, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- An expert-based assessment of the quality, reliability, understandability, and readability of ChatGPT responses on cerebral palsy.Child's nervous system : ChNS : official journal of the International Society for Pediatric Neurosurgery · 2026Article
- Assessing the Quality, Usefulness, and Reliability of Large Language Models (ChatGPT, DeepSeek, and Gemini) in Answering General Questions Regarding Dyslexia and Dyscalculia.The Psychiatric quarterly · 2026Article
- Evaluation of the quality, reliability, and readability of ChatGPT-4 responses related to the treatment and rehabilitation of children with cerebral palsy.European journal of pediatrics · 2026Article
- Gemini 1.5 Flash provides the most reliable content while ChatGPT-4o offers the highest readability for patient education on meniscal tears.Knee surgery, sports traumatology, arthroscopy : official journal of the ESSKA · 2026Article
- Evaluating large language models as tools for public health education on scoliosis.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
- Assessing AI-Based Large Language Models (ChatGPT, Google Gemini, and DeepSeek) for Common Parent Questions about Autism: Acceptability, Readability, and Accuracy.The Psychiatric quarterly · 2025Article
- Readability and information quality of LLM-Generated HIV content: a methodological content evaluation.BMC infectious diseases · 2025Article
- Balancing Accuracy and Readability: Comparative Evaluation of AI Chatbots for Patient Education on Rotator Cuff Tears.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
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
objectiveThis study evaluates the reliability, usefulness, quality, and readability of ChatGPT's responses to frequently asked questions about scoliosis.
methodsSixteen frequently asked questions, identified through an analysis of Google Trends data and clinical feedback, were presented to ChatGPT for evaluation. Two independent experts assessed the responses using a 7-point Likert scale for reliability and usefulness. Additionally, the overall quality was also rated using the Global Quality Scale (GQS). To assess readability, various established metrics were employed, including the Flesch Reading Ease score (FRE), the Simple Measure of Gobbledygook (SMOG) Index, the Coleman-Liau Index (CLI), the Gunning Fog Index (GFI), the Flesch-Kinkaid Grade Level (FKGL), the FORCAST Grade Level, and the Automated Readability Index (ARI).
resultsThe mean reliability scores were 4.68 ± 0.73 (Median: 5, IQR 4-5), while the mean usefulness scores were 4.84 ± 0.84 (Median: 5, IQR 4-5). Additionally the mean GQS scores were 4.28 ± 0.58 (Median: 4, IQR 4-5). Inter-rater reliability analysis using the Intraclass correlation coefficient showed excellent agreement: 0.942 for reliability, 0.935 for usefulness, and 0.868 for GQS. While general informational questions received high scores, responses to treatment-specific and personalized inquiries required greater depth and comprehensiveness. Readability analysis indicated that ChatGPT's responses required at least a high school senior to college-level reading ability.
conclusionChatGPT provides reliable, useful, and moderate quality information on scoliosis but has limitations in addressing treatment-specific and personalized inquiries. Caution is essential when using Artificial Intelligence (AI) in patient education and medical decision-making.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40100428What 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.