ArticleJournal of experimental orthopaedics2025
Assessing information provided via artificial intelligence regarding distal biceps tendon repair surgery.
Article in Journal of experimental orthopaedics, 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.
- [Rotator Cuff Surgery and Artificial Intelligence: A Comparative Analysis of Quality and Readability Between ChatGPT and Gemini].Revista brasileira de ortopedia · 2026Article
- Rotator Cuff Surgery and Artificial Intelligence: A Comparative Analysis of Quality and Readability Between ChatGPT and Gemini.Revista brasileira de ortopedia · 2026Article
- Assessing information provided via artificial intelligence regarding distal biceps tendon repair surgery.Journal of experimental orthopaedics · 2025Article
- 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: The purpose of this study was to analyze the quality, accuracy, reliability and readability of information provided by an Artificial Intelligence (AI) model ChatGPT (Open AI, San Francisco) regarding Distal Biceps Tendon repair surgery. Methods: ChatGPT 3.5 was used to answer 27 commonly asked questions regarding 'distal biceps repair surgery' by patients. These questions were categorized using the Rothwell criteria of Results: The DISCERN score for Conclusion: The answers provided by ChatGPT were a 'good' source in terms of quality assessment, compared to other online resources that do not have citations as an option. The accuracy and reliability of these answers were shown to be low, with nearly a college-graduate level of readability. This indicates that physicians should caution patients when searching ChatGPT for information regarding distal biceps repairs. ChatGPT serves as a promising source for patients to learn about their procedure, although its reliability and readability are disadvantages for the average patient when utilizing the software.
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.