ArticleCureus2025
Comparing the Quality and Readability of ChatGPT-4-Generated vs. Human-Generated Patient Education Materials for Total Knee Arthroplasty.
Article in Cureus, 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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background The purpose of this study was to evaluate the potential role of artificial intelligence, specifically ChatGPT-4, in generating patient education materials (PEMs) for total knee arthroplasty (TKA). The aim of our study was to compare the quality and readability of PEMs for TKA generated by ChatGPT-4 with those created by human experts to assess the potential for the use of AI in patient education. Materials and methods We assessed the quality and readability of TKA PEMs produced by ChatGPT-4 and five reputable human-generated websites. Readability was compared using Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level and Flesch Reading Ease. The quality of information was compared using the DISCERN criteria. Results ChatGPT-4 PEMs demonstrated a significantly higher reading grade level and lower reading ease score compared to human-generated PEMs (<0.001). Conclusions The utility of ChatGPT-4 for producing TKA PEMs is promising. Notably, the quality and reliability are as good as human-generated resources. However, it is currently limited by readability issues, leading to a recommendation against its use. Future AI enhancements should prioritize readability to ensure information is more accessible. Effective collaboration between AI developers and healthcare professionals is vital for improving patient education outcomes.
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.