ArticleBJGP open2025
Evaluating ChatGPT for converting clinic letters into patient-friendly language: a quantitative study.
Article in BJGP open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Large language models and artificial intelligence for generating, simplifying, and enhancing outpatient clinic letters: A systematic review.PLOS digital health · 2026Article
- How well do we write for patients? Longitudinal analysis of the readability and complexity of 4.6 million ophthalmic clinical letters.BMJ health & care informatics · 2026Article
- Artificial intelligence in orthopaedics: Enhanced examinations, ambient intelligence and the future of clinical practice.Knee surgery, sports traumatology, arthroscopy : official journal of the ESSKA · 2026Review
- ChatGPT in liver transplantation: Current applications, limitations, and future directions.World journal of transplantation · 2026Review
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
backgroundPrevious research has shown that communication with patients in language they understand leads to greater comprehension of treatment and diagnoses, but can be time consuming for clinicians.
aimWe sought to investigate the utility of ChatGPT-4 Classic in translating clinic letters into language patients understood without loss of clinical information, and to assess what impact this had on patients' understanding of letter content. DESIGN &
settingSingle-blinded quantitative study using objective and subjective analysis of language complexity.
methodTwenty-three clinic letters were provided by consultants across eight specialties. Letters were inputted into ChatGPT-4 Classic with a prompt related to improve understanding for patients. Patient representatives were then asked to rate their understanding of the content of letters.
resultsTranslation of letters by ChatGPT-4 Classic resulted in no loss of clinical information, but did result in significant increase in understanding, satisfaction, and decrease in the need to obtain medical help to translate the letter contents by patient representatives compared with clinician-written originals.
conclusionOverall, we concluded that ChatGPT-4 Classic can be used to translate clinic letters into patient-friendly language without loss of clinical content and that these letters are preferred by patients.
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.