ReviewArthroscopy, sports medicine, and rehabilitation2025
ChatGPT-Generated Responses Across Orthopaedic Sports Medicine Surgery Vary in Accuracy, Quality, and Readability: A Systematic Review.
Review in Arthroscopy, sports medicine, and rehabilitation, 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.
- Loss of Reduction and Clavicle Fractures Commonly Occur in Patients Undergoing Acromioclavicular Joint Reconstruction and Female Sex Is Associated With Higher Fracture Risk.Arthroscopy, sports medicine, and rehabilitation · 2026Article
- ChatGPT-generated rehabilitation programs in sports physiotherapy: an expert evaluation and a mixed-methods study of clinical applicability.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Article
- Are artificial intelligence-generated recommendations clinically safe? Evaluation of thromboembolic prophylaxis advice after arthroplasty.Revista da Associacao Medica Brasileira (1992) · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: To evaluate the current literature regarding the accuracy and efficacy of ChatGPT in delivering patient education on common orthopaedic sports medicine operations. Methods: A systematic review was performed in accordance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses guidelines. After PROSPERO registration, a keyword search was conducted in the PubMed, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Scopus databases in September 2024. Articles were included if they evaluated ChatGPT's performance against established sources, examined ChatGPT's ability to provide counseling related to orthopaedic sports medicine operations, and assessed ChatGPT's quality of responses. Primary outcomes assessed were quality of written content (e.g., DISCERN score), readability (e.g., Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level and Flesch-Kincaid Reading Ease Score), and reliability ( Results: Seventeen articles satisfied the inclusion and exclusion criteria and formed the basis of this review. Four studies compared the effectiveness of ChatGPT and Google, and another study compared ChatGPT-3.5 with ChatGPT-4. ChatGPT provided moderate- to high-quality responses (mean DISCERN score, 41.0-62.1), with strong inter-rater reliability (0.72-0.91). Readability analyses showed that responses were written at a high school to college reading level (mean Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level, 10.3-16.0) and were generally difficult to read (mean Flesch-Kincaid Reading Ease Score, 28.1-48.0). ChatGPT frequently lacked source citations, resulting in a poor reliability score across all studies (mean Conclusions: ChatGPT provides generally satisfactory responses to patient questions regarding orthopaedic sports medicine operations. However, its utility remains limited by challenges with source attribution, high reading complexity, and variability in accuracy. Level of Evidence: Level V, systematic review of Level V studies.
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.