ArticleCureus2025
Evaluation of the Quality and Readability of ChatGPT Responses to Toothache Queries: A Study Based on Google Trends.
Article in Cureus, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Comment on "Examining the effectiveness of ChatGPT responses to frequently asked questions by individuals with postural disorders".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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background Conversational AI tools such as ChatGPT are increasingly used for health information seeking. While their popularity continues to grow, little is known about the readability and quality of their outputs in dental contexts, particularly for toothache, one of the most common oral health complaints. Objective This study aimed to evaluate the quality and readability of ChatGPT's responses to frequently searched toothache-related queries and to conceptually compare them with information available from top-ranked traditional websites. Methods In this cross-sectional study, the 20 most common toothache-related queries were identified using Google Trends (January 2014-January 2024). Each query was posed to ChatGPT (May 2024 version) in independent sessions to avoid contextual bias. Two endodontist raters assessed the quality of responses using the Ensuring Quality Information for Patients (EQIP) tool. Readability was measured using the Flesch Reading Ease, Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level, and Simple Measure of Gobbledygook (SMOG) Index. Interrater reliability was calculated using Cohen's kappa and the Intraclass Correlation Coefficient (ICC). For comparison, the first 3-5 non-advertising websites retrieved via Google for each query were evaluated using the same instruments. Results ChatGPT responses demonstrated high content quality (mean EQIP 85.3 ± 5.2) and moderate readability demands (Flesch Reading Ease 57.9 ± 3.2; Flesch-Kincaid 8.4 ± 0.6; SMOG 7.5 ± 0.4). Interrater reliability was excellent (κ = 0.86; ICC = 0.91). Compared with websites, ChatGPT yielded slightly higher EQIP scores (ΔEQIP + 3.1 on average) but also higher reading grade levels (ΔFKGL + 0.4). Conclusions ChatGPT provides responses to toothache-related queries that are comparable, and in some cases superior, in quality to top-ranked, non-advertising traditional health websites retrieved via Google search. However, both ChatGPT and these conventional sources exhibit moderate readability, which may limit accessibility for individuals with low health literacy. Future efforts should focus on simplifying AI-generated and online content to enhance clarity, equity, and effectiveness in digital health communication.
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.