ArticleBMC nursing2026
Comparative analysis of nursing care plans produced by artificial intelligence models (ChatGPT, Gemini, and DeepSeek) in terms of readability, reliability, and quality.
Article in BMC nursing, 2026. 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundWhile AI chatbots have increased access to healthcare information, evidence regarding the readability, reliability, and overall quality of nursing care plans generated by these systems remains limited. PURPOSE: This study aimed to comparatively evaluate nursing care plan texts generated by ChatGPT, Gemini, and DeepSeek in terms of readability, reliability, and overall quality.
methodsThirty nursing diagnoses were randomly selected from the NANDA International 2021–2023 taxonomy. For each diagnosis, nursing care plans were generated using three AI chatbots, resulting in 90 texts. Outputs were comparatively evaluated using a descriptive information form, the DISCERN instrument, and multiple readability measures (FRES, SMOG, Gunning Fog Index, and Flesch–Kincaid Grade Level).
resultsReadability analyses indicated that nursing care plans generated by all three AI models significantly exceeded the recommended sixth-grade reading level (P < .001). DISCERN scores reflected moderate reliability, with mean scores of 57.41 ± 5.9 for ChatGPT, 58.41 ± 4.8 for Gemini, and 56.51 ± 6.8 for DeepSeek. Overall, 27 texts (90%) were rated as providing nursing care information of moderate quality. The presence of verifiable references demonstrated a statistically significant positive association with both reliability and quality scores (P < .05).
conclusionAlthough AI chatbots demonstrate potential as supportive tools in nursing education and documentation, they should not be used as standalone resources for generating complete nursing care plans without professional review. Improvements in content clarity, reference accuracy, and expert oversight are necessary to enhance their applicability in nursing practice.
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.