ArticleJoint diseases and related surgery2026
Comparison of ChatGPT and Google in addressing patients' questions on robot-assisted total hip arthroplasty.
Article in Joint diseases and related surgery, 2026. 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.
- Integrating Artificial Intelligence into Orthopedic Practice: Modeling Attitudes and Intentions to Use AI.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Exploring Artificial Intelligence in Orthopedic Surgery: A Review of Perception, Decision, and Execution Systems.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Evaluation of ChatGPT-5.2 responses to frequently asked questions about benign bone tumors.Frontiers in oncology · 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThis study aims to compare ChatGPT (Generative Pre-Trained Transformer) and Google in addressing frequently asked questions (FAQs), answers, and online sources regarding robot-assisted total hip arthroplasty (RATHA). MATERIALS AND
methodsOn December 15
resultsOverall, 20% of the questions that Google and ChatGPT-4o considered as the most FAQ were similar to each other. Technical details (35%) were the most common categories of questions. The ChatGPT provided significantly more academic references than Google search (70% vs. 20%, p=0.0113). Conversely, Google web search cited more medical practice references (40% vs. 0%, p=0.0033), single surgeon websites (20% vs. 0%, p=0.1060), and government websites (10% vs. 0%, p=0.4872) more frequently than ChatGPT. In terms of response quality, 62% of answers were rated as Grade 1-2 (excellent or satisfactory with minimal clarification), while 38% required moderate or substantial clarification (Grades 3-4).
conclusionChatGPT demonstrated comparable results to those of Google searches on information regarding RATHA, with a higher reliance on academic sources. While most responses were satisfactory, a notable proportion required further clarification, emphasizing the need for continued evaluation of these platforms to ensure accuracy and reliability in patient education. Taken together, these technologies have the capacity to enhance health literacy and provide enhanced shared decision-making for patients seeking information on RATHA.
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.