ArticleJSES international2025
Can popular AI large language models provide reliable answers to frequently asked questions about rotator cuff tears?
Article in JSES international, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 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
10 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
- Artificial intelligence revolution in shoulder magnetic resonance imaging: current evidence and future directions for rotator cuff diagnosis.Clinics in shoulder and elbow · 2026Article
- Comparison of ChatGPT and Google in addressing patients' questions on robot-assisted total hip arthroplasty.Joint diseases and related surgery · 2026Article
- ChatGPT-4 vs. DeepSeek-V3: a comparative study of response quality, reliability, usefulness, and readability for exercise and rehabilitation strategies in patients with ankylosing spondylitis.Clinical rheumatology · 2026Article
- A Comparative Analysis of GPT-3.5, GPT-4, GPT-4 Omni, Gemini Advanced, and Gemini 1.5 in Answering Frequently Asked Questions Regarding High Tibial Osteotomy.Orthopaedic journal of sports medicine · 2025Article
- Quality assessment of patient-facing urologic telesurgery content using validated tools.Journal of robotic surgery · 2025Article
- Evaluation of ChatGPT-4 responses on physical activity guidance in children with cystic fibrosis: reliability, quality, and readability.European journal of pediatrics · 2025Article
- Letter to the Editor regarding "Can popular artificial intelligence large language models provide reliable answers to frequently asked questions about rotator cuff tears?"JSES international · 2025Article
- A cross-sectional study on ChatGPT's alignment with clinical practice guidelines in musculoskeletal rehabilitation.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2025Observational
- ChatGPT as a source of surgical information: Evaluation of responses to patient questions on hallux rigidus fusion.Digital healthArticle
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
Background: Rotator cuff tears are common upper-extremity injuries that significantly impair shoulder function, leading to pain, reduced range of motion, and a decrease in quality of life. With the increasing reliance on artificial intelligence large language models (AI LLMs) for health information, it is crucial to evaluate the quality and readability of the information provided by these models. Methods: A pool of 50 questions was generated related to rotator cuff tear by querying popular AI LLMs (ChatGPT 3.5, ChatGPT 4, Gemini, and Microsoft CoPilot) and using Google search. After that, responses from the AI LLMs were saved and evaluated. For information quality the DISCERN tool and a Likert Scale was used, for readability the Patient Education Materials Assessment Tool for Printable Materials (PEMAT) Understandability Score and the Flesch-Kincaid Reading Ease Score was used. Two orthopedic surgeons assessed the responses, and discrepancies were resolved by a senior author. Results: Out of 198 answers, the median DISCERN score was 40, with 56.6% considered sufficient. The Likert Scale showed 96% sufficiency. The median PEMAT Understandability score was 83.33, with 77.3% sufficiency, while the Flesch-Kincaid Reading Ease score had a median of 42.05 with 88.9% sufficiency. Overall, 39.8% of the answers were sufficient in both information quality and readability. Differences were found among AI models in DISCERN, Likert, PEMAT Understandability, and Flesch-Kincaid scores. Conclusion: AI LLMs generally cannot offer sufficient information quality and readability. While they are not ready for use in medical field, they show a promising future. There is a necessity for continuous re-evaluation of these models due to their rapid evolution. Developing new, comprehensive tools for evaluating medical information quality and readability is crucial for ensuring these models can effectively support patient education. Future research should focus on enhancing readability and consistent information quality to better serve 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.