A cross-sectional study on ChatGPT's alignment with clinical practice guidelines in musculoskeletal rehabilitation.

backgroundAI models like ChatGPT have the potential to support musculoskeletal rehabilitation by providing clinical insights. However, their alignment with evidence-based guidelines needs evaluation before integration into physiotherapy practice.

objectiveTo evaluate the performance of ChatGPT (GPT-4 model) in generating responses to musculoskeletal rehabilitation queries by comparing its recommendations with evidence-based clinical practice guidelines (CPGs).

designThis study was designed as a cross-sectional observational study.

methodsTwenty questions covering disease information, assessment, and rehabilitation were developed by two experienced physiotherapists specializing in musculoskeletal disorders. The questions were distributed across three anatomical regions: upper extremity (7 questions), lower extremity (9 questions), and spine (4 questions). ChatGPT's responses were obtained and evaluated independently by two raters using a 5-point Likert scale assessing relevance, accuracy, clarity, completeness, and consistency. Weighted kappa values were calculated to assess inter-rater agreement and consistency within each category.

resultsChatGPT's responses received the highest average score for clarity (4.85), followed by accuracy (4.62), relevance (4.50), and completeness (4.20). Consistency received the lowest score (3.85). The highest agreement (weighted kappa = 0.90) was observed in the disease information category, whereas rehabilitation displayed relatively lower agreement (weighted kappa = 0.56). Variability in consistency and moderate weighted kappa values in relevance and clarity highlighted areas requiring improvement.

conclusionsThis study demonstrates ChatGPT's potential in providing guideline-aligned information in musculoskeletal rehabilitation. However, due to observed limitations in consistency, completeness, and the ability to replicate nuanced clinical reasoning, its use should remain supplementary rather than as a primary decision-making tool. While it performed better in disease information, as evidenced by higher inter-rater agreement and scores, its performance in the rehabilitation category was comparatively lower, highlighting challenges in addressing complex, nuanced therapeutic interventions. This variability in consistency and domain-specific reasoning underscores the need for further refinement to ensure reliability in complex clinical scenarios. CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER: Not applicable.