ArticleBMC nursing2025
Readability, reliability, and quality of nursing care plan texts generated by ChatGPT.
Article in BMC nursing, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundNursing care plans require clinical reasoning, prioritization, and patient-centered decision-making, which distinguishes them from more general AI-generated educational texts. As large language models such as ChatGPT are increasingly used to support nursing education and care planning, it is essential to evaluate the readability, reliability, and quality of the nursing care plans they produce. PURPOSE: This study aims to evaluate the readability, reliability, and quality of nursing care plan texts generated by ChatGPT.
methodsThe study sample consisted of 50 texts generated by ChatGPT (version 4.0) based on selected nursing diagnoses from NANDA 2021–2023. These texts were evaluated using a descriptive criteria form, the DISCERN tool, and readability indices including the Flesch Reading Ease Score (FRES), Simple Measure of Gobbledygook (SMOG), Gunning Fog Index, and Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level (FKGL).
resultsThe analysis demonstrated that the nursing care plans generated by ChatGPT showed a moderate level of quality and reliability. However, the readability levels were generally higher than what is desirable for clinical and educational use, indicating that the texts may be difficult for some users to understand without adaptation. The findings also suggest that the presence of verifiable references contributes positively to the overall quality and reliability of the generated care plans.
conclusionEvaluating the readability, reliability, and quality of AI-generated nursing care plans is essential for ensuring their safe and meaningful use in nursing education and clinical practice. These findings highlight the importance of guiding and refining AI-supported care planning to better align with professional standards and patient-centered care needs.
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.