ArticleJournal of hip preservation surgery2025
Assessment of quality and readability of information provided by ChatGPT in relation to developmental dysplasia of the hip and periacetabular osteotomy.
Article in Journal of hip preservation surgery, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Assessing the accuracy and readability of ChatGPT 4.0's original and simplified responses to common patient questions regarding periacetabular osteotomy.Journal of experimental orthopaedics · 2025Article
- Article
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
This study evaluates the quality and readability of responses given by ChatGPT 4 relating to common patient queries on Developmental Dysplasia of the Hip (DDH) and Periacetabular Osteotomy (PAO). Frequently asked questions on DDH and PAO were selected from online Patient Education Materials and posed to ChatGPT 4. The responses were evaluated by four high-volume PAO surgeons using a well-established evidence-based rating system, categorizing responses from 'excellent response not requiring clarification' to 'unsatisfactory requiring substantial clarification'. Readability assessments were subsequently conducted to determine the required literacy level to understand the content provided. Responses from ChatGPT 4 varied significantly between preoperative and postoperative queries. In the postoperative category, 50% of responses were rated as 'excellent', showing no need for further clarification, while the preoperative responses frequently required minimal to moderate clarification. The overall median response rating was 'satisfactory requiring minimal clarification'. Readability tests showed that the average Reading Grade Level was 13.44, considerably higher than the recommended sixth-grade level for patient education materials, indicating a substantial barrier to comprehension for the general public. While ChatGPT delivers generally reliable information, the complexity of its language is a major barrier to widespread utilization as a tool for patient education. Future iterations of ChatGPT should aim to utilize more simplistic language, as such enhancing accessibility without compromising content quality.
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.