ReviewAdvances in health information science and practice2025
The Accuracy of ChatGPT in Answering FAQs, Making Clinical Recommendations, and Categorizing Patient Symptoms: A Literature Review.
Review in Advances in health information science and practice, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Artificial Intelligence Tools in Pre-Travel Health Consultations: A Scoping Review of Clinical Evidence, Implementation Gaps, and Emerging Opportunities.Tropical medicine and infectious disease · 2026Review
- Research Paradigm Mismatch: How Patients and Health Care Professionals Seek Health-Related Information Online.The Permanente journal · 2026Article
- The Quality of AI-Generated CABG Counseling: A Blinded Comparison of Two Language Models.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Evaluation of Cancer Survivors' Experience of Using AI-Based Conversational Tools: Qualitative Study.JMIR cancer · 2025Article
- Assessing the Accuracy and Completeness of AI-Generated Dental Responses: An Evaluation of the Chat-GPT Model.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Background: ChatGPT is a popular open-source large language model (LLM) that uses supervised learning to create human-like queries. In recent years, ChatGPT has generated excitement in the medical field. However, its accuracy must be carefully evaluated to determine its usefulness in patient care. In this literature review, the authors examine whether ChatGPT can accurately answer frequently asked questions (FAQs) from patients, make clinical recommendations, and effectively categorize patient symptoms. Methods: A database search in PubMed was conducted using the search terms "ChatGPT," "accuracy," and "clinical decision-making," yielding 122 unique references. Two screening stages resulted in 9 studies that met the evaluation criteria for this review. Results: Analysis of 9 studies showed that while ChatGPT can answer FAQs, offer recommendations, and categorize symptoms in less complicated scenarios, its clinical accuracy ranged from 20% to 95%. ChatGPT may be helpful in specific clinical scenarios; however, its variable accuracy makes it unsuitable as a stand-alone point-of-care product. Conclusions: ChatGPT is only adept at providing generalized recommendations when individual patient care is more suitable. Further research is needed to identify where ChatGPT delivers the most accurate responses and how it can supplement traditional care.
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.