ArticleCureus2025
Evaluating the Accuracy, Completeness, and Readability of Chatbot Responses to Refractive Surgery-Related Patient Questions: A Comparative Analysis of ChatGPT and Google Gemini.
Article in Cureus, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose This study evaluates the performance of ChatGPT and Google Gemini in addressing refractive surgery-related patient questions by analysing the accuracy, completeness, and readability of their responses. Methods A total of 40 refractive surgery-related questions were compiled and categorized into three levels of difficulty: easy, medium, and hard. Responses from ChatGPT and Google Gemini were blinded and evaluated by two experienced ophthalmologists using standardized criteria. Accuracy was scored on a six-point Likert scale, completeness on a three-point scale, and readability using Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level, Gunning Fog Index, Simple Measure of Gobbledygook (SMOG) Index, and word count. Intra- and inter-rater reliability were assessed using intra-class correlation coefficients (ICC). Results Both chatbots demonstrated high intra-rater (ICC>0.75) and inter-rater reliability. Accuracy scores were similar for most questions; however, statistically significant differences were observed for harder questions, where Gemini showed slightly reduced performance compared to ChatGPT. Readability metrics revealed no significant differences between the two tools, although ChatGPT responses tended to be more detailed, while Gemini generated more concise answers. Harder questions resulted in longer and more complex responses, as indicated by higher Gunning Fog and SMOG Index scores. Conclusions ChatGPT and Google Gemini exhibit strong potential in patient education, with complementary strengths in accuracy, readability, and response detail. The influence of question complexity on chatbot performance highlights the need for ongoing optimization to enhance both clarity and accessibility. These findings underscore the value of integrating artificial intelligence (AI) tools into healthcare to support patient education and engagement.
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.