ArticleNursing open2026
Evaluation of Information Generated by ChatGPT on Preventing Peripheral Venous Catheter-Related Infections.
Article in Nursing open, 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimTo evaluate the accuracy and completeness of information generated by ChatGPT models in preventing peripheral intravenous catheter-related infections.
backgroundPeripheral intravenous catheters are vital for administering medication and fluids but often cause complications like life-threatening infections. These issues increase healthcare costs and patient discomfort. Nurses are crucial in managing these catheters, yet studies show they often lack knowledge and adherence to best practices.
methodThis descriptive study utilised a 10-question Information Form for Preventing Peripheral Venous Catheter-Related Infections. By presenting the form to ChatGPT models (GPT-3.5, GPT-4, and GPT-4o), it was requested that each multiple-choice question be answered and a brief explanation provided as to why that option was correct. Responses were evaluated for correctness (0-10), accuracy (1-5), and completeness (1-3) using Likert scales.
resultsGPT-3.5 and GPT-4o each scored 5 out of 10 on the Information Form for Preventing Peripheral Venous Catheter-Related Infections, while GPT-4 scored 3 out of 10. All models correctly answered questions on catheter replacement, selection, and dressing regimens (time of replacement) but struggled with hand hygiene, aseptic technique, and catheter dressing regimens (type of dressing). Accuracy scores averaged 3.9 for GPT-3.5, 3.5 for GPT-4, and 3.4 for GPT-4o. Completeness scores averaged 1.8 for GPT-3.5, 1.6 for GPT-4, and 1.8 for GPT-4o. There were no significant differences in accuracy and completeness scores between the models (p > 0.05).
conclusionThe findings highlight that although ChatGPT models can provide supportive information, their limitations in accuracy and completeness may pose risks for patient safety, particularly in critical domains such as aseptic technique and hand hygiene. It was emphasised that expert supervision is needed in the use of artificial intelligence tools to provide information in healthcare services. IMPACT: Future improvements in artificial intelligence models are necessary to enhance their effectiveness in medical applications. It is crucial to ensure that healthcare professionals are aware of the current limitations of artificial intelligence tools and continue to rely on expert knowledge and supervision in clinical settings. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: No patient or public contribution.
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.