ArticleAnnals of joint2026
Artificial intelligence models cannot yet replace experts in providing patient education for shoulder and elbow orthopaedic pathologies: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Article in Annals of joint, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: AI and machine learning (ML) have diverse applications in orthopedic surgery, such as for diagnosis of disease, surgical assistance, and outcome prediction. When used as adjuncts, AI has a potential to reduce clinical workload, improve workflow and aid in clinical decision making. The objective of this systematic review is to evaluate current literature on artificial intelligence (AI) to assess effectiveness in developing responses to inquiries related to orthopaedic upper extremity pathologies. Methods: Three databases (PubMed, MEDLINE, EMBASE) were searched for studies involving AI and questions in shoulder and elbow orthopedics. Inclusion criteria included papers related to shoulder and elbow, human studies, use of AI models, published in English language and at any level of evidence. Data on response accuracy, reliability and quality, as well as area under the curve (AUC) of the given AI algorithm, were recorded. Meta-analyses were conducted on both the accuracy and AUC of AI algorithms on relevant studies. Risk of bias was assessed using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS-2). Results: A total of 16 studies were included in this review. Nine studies used a version of ChatGPT, one study used GoogleBard, and the remaining seven studies used a variety of AI learning models. The overall pooled accuracy of responses developed by AI models was 78%, and the pooled mean AUC of included AI algorithms was 86%. AI algorithms performed inferiorly compared to experts. The overall quality and readability of AI responses were poor. Conclusions: AI algorithms assessed in our study demonstrated a promising degree of accuracy and performance. However, AI responses were found to be inferior to experts and had poor readability, quality, and value to the patient. In its current state of technology, AI is a powerful tool that can be used in conjunction with experts to augment patient education, however, it should not be utilized independently.
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.