ArticleBMC oral health2026
Assessing the accuracy, reliability, quality, and readability of artificial intelligence chatbots in patient education: insights from zirconia crowns.
Article in BMC oral health, 2026. 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.
- Evaluation of large language model-generated information in diabetes health patient education: a scoping review.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
- Evaluating the accuracy, reliability, and readability of AI chatbots in delivering postpartum depression information.Frontiers in psychiatry · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThis study aims to conduct a comparative evaluation of the accuracy, reliability, quality, and readability of chatbot-generated responses from five widely used artificial intelligence (AI) chatbots when addressing frequently asked questions (FAQs) on zirconia and pediatric zirconia crowns.
methodsTwenty FAQs on zirconia crowns were derived from two Google searches (“frequently asked questions about zirconia” and “frequently asked questions about pediatric zirconia”). Five chatbots (ChatGPT-5, ChatGPT-4o, Gemini-2.5 Flash, DeepSeek-V3, and Microsoft Copilot) were queried independently, and responses were anonymized and evaluated. Accuracy was rated on a 5-point Likert scale, reliability using a modified DISCERN tool, quality with the Global Quality Scale (GQS), and readability using the Flesch Reading Ease Score (FRES). Statistical analyses included Mann−Whitney U and Kruskal−Wallis tests, with intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) used for inter-rater reliability.
resultsInter-rater agreement was strong (ICC: 0.78 − 0.98). Gemini achieved the highest scores in accuracy, quality, and reliability (p < 0.001), while ChatGPT-4o, ChatGPT-5, and DeepSeek demonstrated superior readability. Microsoft Copilot scored lowest across domains, particularly in reliability and readability. No significant differences emerged between prosthodontic and pediatric evaluations, except for higher GQS ratings for DeepSeek in pediatric dentistry (p = 0.035).
conclusionGemini showed the highest accuracy, reliability, and quality, indicating its strong potential for clinician use in generating evidence-aligned information. ChatGPT-4o, ChatGPT-5, and DeepSeek offered more readable outputs suitable for explanations. Given the substantial between-platform variability, clinicians should critically appraise and, when necessary, adapt chatbot responses to ensure alignment with current evidence before recommending them to patients.
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.