SynthesisBritish medical bulletin2025
AI chatbots versus human healthcare professionals: a systematic review and meta-analysis of empathy in patient care.
Synthesis in British medical bulletin, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 37 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.
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
37 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- ChatGPT provides accurate and safe responses to patient questions on hip arthroscopy, while completeness remains variable: A systematic review and single-arm meta-analysis.Knee surgery, sports traumatology, arthroscopy : official journal of the ESSKA · 2026Pooled it
- Digital compassion fatigue and digital empathy in healthcare: mapping the evidence and informing a human-centered clinical framework.Frontiers in psychology · 2026Pooled it
- Speech-touch integration for affective human-robot interaction: a scoping review.Frontiers in robotics and AI · 2026Pooled it
- Knowledge-Practice Performance Gap in Clinical Large Language Models: Systematic Review of 39 Benchmarks.Journal of medical Internet research · 2025Pooled it
- The benefits and future potential of generative artificial intelligence (GAI) on mental health: a Delphi study.International journal of qualitative studies on health and well-being · 2026Article
- Religious Concerns about the Integration of Artificial Intelligence into Clinical Medicine and Patient Care.Journal of religion and health · 2026Article
- Conversational AI in Hereditary Cancer Care: Sociotechnical Study of Responsible Design Requirements.JMIR human factors · 2026Article
- Audit of Patient Communications Following Transoral Robotic Surgery.World journal of otorhinolaryngology - head and neck surgery · 2026Article
- Perspectives of People with Serious Mental Illness on Artificial Intelligence-Based Companions: "If no one told you I love you today, you have someone that cares for you."Community mental health journal · 2026Article
- The Use of Artificial Intelligence Chatbots by Newly Diagnosed Cancer Patients: A Descriptive Phenomenological Study.Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2026Article
- User evaluation of AI- and human-generated responses in digital health communication: a paired survey study.BMC health services research · 2026Article
- Acceptability, Usability, and Clinical Appropriateness of an AI-Powered Tool for Linkage to HIV Services After HIV Self-Testing in South Africa: Mixed Methods Evaluation.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Article
- Conversational AI should fill the white space in mental health care, not replace humans.NPJ digital medicine · 2026Review
- The Empathy Paradox: AI in Clinical Diagnosis.Journal of evaluation in clinical practice · 2026Article
- Comparison of artificial intelligence-based chatbots and expert periodontists in responding to patient questions: a multi-dimensional analysis.BMC oral health · 2026Article
- Experiences of Primiparous Mothers Using ChatGPTfor Breastfeeding and Infant Care.Maternal & child nutrition · 2026Article
- Patient Perspectives on AI-Drafted Electronic Portal Messages.JAMA network open · 2026Article
- Coproduction Without Youth? Closing the Participation Gap in Digital Mental Health Research.JMIR mental health · 2026Article
- The Warmth of Medicine: The Irreplaceability of Doctors in the Era of Artificial Intelligence.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Article
- Clinician-Patient Asynchronous Text Messaging Communication in Hospital-at-Home Care: Qualitative Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundEmpathy is widely recognized for improving patient outcomes, including reduced pain and anxiety and improved satisfaction, and its absence can cause harm. Meanwhile, use of artificial intelligence (AI)-based chatbots in healthcare is rapidly expanding, with one in five general practitioners using generative AI to assist with tasks such as writing letters. Some studies suggest AI chatbots can outperform human healthcare professionals (HCPs) in empathy, though findings are mixed and lack synthesis. SOURCES OF DATA: We searched multiple databases for studies comparing AI chatbots using large language models with human HCPs on empathy measures. We assessed risk of bias with ROBINS-I and synthesized findings using random-effects meta-analysis where feasible, whilst avoiding double counting. AREAS OF AGREEMENT: We identified 15 studies (2023-2024). Thirteen studies reported statistically significantly higher empathy ratings for AI, with only two studies situated in dermatology favouring human responses. Of the 15 studies, 13 provided extractable data and were suitable for pooling. Meta-analysis of those 13 studies, all utilising ChatGPT-3.5/4, showed a standardized mean difference of 0.87 (95% CI, 0.54-1.20) favouring AI (P < .00001), roughly equivalent to a two-point increase on a 10-point scale. AREAS OF CONTROVERSY: Studies relied on text-based assessments that overlook non-verbal cues and evaluated empathy through proxy raters. GROWING POINTS: Our findings indicate that, in text-only scenarios, AI chatbots are frequently perceived as more empathic than human HCPs. AREAS TIMELY FOR DEVELOPING RESEARCH: Future research should validate these findings with direct patient evaluations and assess whether emerging voice-enabled AI systems can deliver similar empathic advantages.
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.