ArticleInternational urogynecology journal2025
Addressing Commonly Asked Questions in Urogynecology: Accuracy and Limitations of ChatGPT.
Article in International urogynecology journal, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- ChatGPT Health and ChatGPT Plus in Urogynecology: A Blinded Comparison of Response Quality, Guideline Concordance, and Safety.International urogynecology journal · 2026Article
- Shaping AI in Pelvic Floor Physiotherapy: The Impact of Role-Play Prompting on ChatGPT Response Quality.International urogynecology journal · 2026Article
- Development and Evaluation of an Augmented Artificial Intelligence Model for Urogynecology Queries.International urogynecology journal · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introduction and hypothesisExisting literature suggests that large language models such as Chat Generative Pre-training Transformer (ChatGPT) might provide inaccurate and unreliable health care information. The literature regarding its performance in urogynecology is scarce. The aim of the present study is to assess ChatGPT's ability to accurately answer commonly asked urogynecology patient questions.
methodsAn expert panel of five board certified urogynecologists and two fellows developed ten commonly asked patient questions in a urogynecology office. Questions were phrased using diction and verbiage that a patient may use when asking a question over the internet. ChatGPT responses were evaluated using the Brief DISCERN (BD) tool, a validated scoring system for online health care information. Scores ≥ 16 are consistent with good-quality content. Responses were graded based on their accuracy and consistency with expert opinion and published guidelines.
resultsThe average score across all ten questions was 18.9 ± 2.7. Nine out of ten (90%) questions had a response that was determined to be of good quality (BD ≥ 16). The lowest scoring topic was "Pelvic Organ Prolapse" (mean BD = 14.0 ± 2.0). The highest scoring topic was "Interstitial Cystitis" (mean BD = 22.0 ± 0). ChatGPT provided no references for its responses.
conclusionsChatGPT provided high-quality responses to 90% of the questions based on an expert panel's review with the BD tool. Nonetheless, given the evolving nature of this technology, continued analysis is crucial before ChatGPT can be accepted as accurate and reliable.
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.