ArticleCanadian Urological Association journal = Journal de l'Association des urologues du Canada2026
Optimizing ChatGPT Applying prompt engineering to frequently asked questions in urologic oncology.
Article in Canadian Urological Association journal = Journal de l'Association des urologues du Canada, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionPatients rely on online searches for patient education materials (PEMs). PEMs are recommended to be written at or below a sixth-grade reading level but are regularly written at a college reading level. Using prompt engineering, we assess the information, misinformation, and readability of ChatGPT responses to urologic oncology questions.
methodsForty-five questions relating to prostate, bladder, and kidney cancer were presented to ChatGPT (version 4o, OpenAI). Quality of health information was assessed using DISCERN (1 [low] to 5 [high]). Understandability and actionability were assessed using PEMAT-P (0 [low] to 100% [high]). Misinformation was scored from 1 [no misinformation] to 5 [high misinformation]. Grade and reading level were calculated using the Flesch-Kincaid scale [5 (easy) to 16 (difficult), and 100-90 (5th grade level) to 10-0 (professional level), respectively]. Prompt engineering was then applied to responses and evaluated.
resultsChatGPT answers are highly accurate but at too advanced a reading level and lacked explanations of benefits, risks, visual aids, actionability, and citations. Using prompt engineering, DISCERN (3.42-4.47, p<0.0001), PEMAT-P understandability (88.4-95.5%, p<0.0001), actionability (25.6-84.2%, p<0.0001), grade reading level (10.5-5.3, p<0.0001), and reading level (42 [college level] to 71.7 [7th grade], p<0.0001), all significantly improved. Misinformation did not change significantly.
conclusionsUsing prompt engineering, ChatGPT provides highly accurate and understandable PEMs at a patient-appropriate reading level and provides concrete resources for patient action. Urologists should understand prompt engineering and be involved in the development of artificial chatbots to optimize results.
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.