ArticleCureus2026
Evaluating the Effectiveness of Chatbot-Based Patient Education Compared to Traditional Patient Information Leaflets Related to Pediatric Anesthesia: A Pilot Cross-Sectional Study.
Article in Cureus, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background Clear, accurate, and empathetic communication is essential in pediatric anesthesia, where parental anxiety and information needs are high. Traditional patient information leaflets (PILs), while clinically robust, may lack emotional engagement. Large language model (LLM)-based chatbots, such as ChatGPT and Google Gemini, offer a novel, interactive approach to patient education, yet their role in pediatric anesthesia remains inadequately explored. Objective To evaluate and compare the readability, accuracy, completeness, sentiment, and parental satisfaction of artificial intelligence (AI)-generated patient education materials (ChatGPT and Google Gemini) with a clinician-authored departmental PIL (DPIL) for pediatric general anesthesia. Methods This pilot cross-sectional study evaluated responses generated by ChatGPT and Google Gemini to seven frequently asked questions derived from the departmental PIL. Three blinded leaflets were presented in randomized order using a computer-generated sequence and evaluated by 10 anesthetists for accuracy and completeness using 10-point Likert scales. Readability was assessed using Flesch Reading Ease and Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level scores. Sentiment analysis and parental satisfaction were also assessed. Both descriptive and inferential statistical analyses were performed. Results The DPIL demonstrated the highest readability, followed by ChatGPT, with Gemini scoring the lowest. All materials exceeded the recommended sixth-grade readability level. No significant differences were observed in accuracy or completeness among the three sources (p > 0.05). Parents consistently perceived ChatGPT responses as more reassuring and relatable, while the DPIL was viewed as informative but formal. Gemini responses were often considered linguistically complex. ChatGPT demonstrated a neutral and more empathetic sentiment compared with the other leaflets. Conclusion Clinician-authored PILS remain the most reliable source of pediatric anesthesia information. AI-generated content, particularly ChatGPT, may enhance clarity and emotional reassurance when used as a clinician-reviewed adjunct rather than a replacement.
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.