ArticleRevista da Associacao Medica Brasileira (1992)2025
Examining the effectiveness of ChatGPT responses to frequently asked questions by individuals with postural disorders.
Article in Revista da Associacao Medica Brasileira (1992), 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.
- Evaluating the role of ChatGPT in patient questions regarding drug allergies.The World Allergy Organization journal · 2026Article
- Comment on "Examining the effectiveness of ChatGPT responses to frequently asked questions by individuals with postural disorders".Revista da Associacao Medica Brasileira (1992) · 2026Article
- Quality, readability, and patient safety of ChatGPT-generated responses to fall-related questions in older adults: a multidisciplinary evaluation.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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThe aim of the study was to evaluate the quality and readability of ChatGPT responses to frequently asked questions by individuals with posture disorder. Providing reliable and evidence-based information about posture disorders is vital for individuals to be correctly informed.
methodsThe 10 most frequently asked questions about posture disorder were selected by two researchers from a list created by ChatGPT. The questions were transmitted to ChatGPT 4.0, and the initial responses were recorded without further follow-up questions. The quality of the responses was then assessed by five independent experts (three physiotherapists, one physical therapy and rehabilitation specialist, and one orthopedics and traumatology specialist) with a four-grade evaluation system. Readability levels were analyzed with the Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level through WordCalc software. Statistical analysis was performed using Statistical Package for the Social Sciences v29.0, and intraclass correlation coefficients were used to measure inter-rater reliability.
resultsFollowing a thorough evaluation of the 10 responses received, six were rated as "Excellent responses requiring no explanation," while a further four were designated as "Satisfactory responses requiring minimal explanation." The median quality score of the responses was high, indicating good alignment with current evidence-based practice. The average readability level of the responses was determined to be 8.4. Inter-rater reliability was good, with an intraclass correlation coefficients value of 0.756.
conclusionChatGPT provides relatively coherent and generally readable answers to frequently asked questions about posture disorders, with most needing minimal explanation. While promising as a resource to meet the information needs of people with posture disorders, further improvements are needed to align it with personalized health 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.