ArticleUlusal travma ve acil cerrahi dergisi = Turkish journal of trauma & emergency surgery : TJTES2025
Assessing the quality of ChatGPT's responses to commonly asked questions about trigger finger treatment.
Article in Ulusal travma ve acil cerrahi dergisi = Turkish journal of trauma & emergency surgery : TJTES, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Augmenting Patient Education in Hand Surgery-Evaluation of ChatGPT as an Informational Tool in Carpal Tunnel Syndrome.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 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
backgroundThis study aims to evaluate the accuracy and reliability of Generative Pre-trained Transformer (ChatGPT; OpenAI, San Francisco, California) in answering patient-related questions about trigger finger. This evaluation has the potential to enhance patient education prior to treatment and provides insight into the role of artificial intelligence (AI)-based systems in the patient educa-tion process.
methodsThe ten most frequently asked questions regarding trigger finger were compiled from patient education websites and a literature review, then posed to ChatGPT. Two orthopedic specialists evaluated the responses using the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) Benchmark criteria and the DISCERN instrument (A Tool for Judging the Quality of Written Consumer Health Information on Treatment Choices). Additionally, the readability of the responses was assessed using the Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level.
resultsThe DISCERN scores for ChatGPT's responses to trigger finger questions ranged from 35 to 47, with an average of 42, indicating "moderate" quality. While 60% of the responses were satisfactory, 40% contained deficiencies. According to the JAMA Benchmark criteria, the absence of scientific references was a significant drawback. The average readability level corresponded to the university level, making the information difficult to understand for patients with low health literacy. Improvements are needed to enhance the accessibility and comprehensibility of the content for a broader patient population.
conclusionTo the best of our knowledge, this is the first study to investigate the use of ChatGPT in the context of trigger finger. While ChatGPT shows reasonable effectiveness in providing general information on trigger finger, expert oversight is necessary before it can be relied upon as a primary source for patient education.
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.