ArticleWound repair and regeneration : official publication of the Wound Healing Society [and] the European Tissue Repair Society
How Successful Is AI in Developing Postsurgical Wound Care Education Material?
Article in Wound repair and regeneration : official publication of the Wound Healing Society [and] the European Tissue Repair Society. 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.
- Understandability and Actionability of Artificial Intelligence-Assisted Lymphedema Education Material in Patients Undergoing Breast Cancer Surgery: Expert Evaluation.Journal of clinical nursing · 2026Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
ChatGPT can be used as an aid in education, research and clinical management. This study was conducted using the ChatGPT 4.0 program to develop artificial intelligence-supported wound care education material that can be read and understood by patients discharged after surgery. In this methodological study, while creating wound care education material, the education needs of the patients were determined first. Then, the education content was created in the ChatGPT 4 program. Expert opinion was taken for the clarity, applicability, accuracy and quality of the education content. The Turkish readability index of the education material was found to be 68.9 and easily understandable. The Automated Readability Index was found to be 9.29, the Simple Measure of Gobbledygook 7.89, the Flesch-Kincaid 8.07, the Flesch Reading Ease 59.0 and the Average Reading Level Consensus 9.99, which are frequently used in health literature. The PEMAT understandability and applicability score averages were determined 93.90 ± 6.11 (84-100) and 90.20 ± 8.66, respectively. The Global Quality Scale score average was found to be 4.40 ± 0.69. This study reveals that ChatGPT provides understandable, applicable, accurate and high-quality postoperative wound care education material.
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.