ArticleDigital health
Assessing the understandability, actionability, reliability, and readability of ChatGPT-4o in providing patient education on urinary incontinence.
Article in Digital health. 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
Objective: This study assesses ChatGPT-4o's responses to common patient inquiries regarding urinary incontinence (UI), a condition that significantly impacts quality of life but often goes untreated due to low healthcare-seeking behavior. The evaluation focuses on four key metrics: understandability, actionability, reliability, and readability. Material and Methods: In this non-human subject qualitative study, 13 patient-focused questions-derived from AUA/SUFU and EAU guidelines-were posed to ChatGPT-4o in Turkish. The questions were categorized into four themes: Definition, Diagnosis, Management, and Surgical Considerations. Three blinded experts (an urogynecologist, a urologist, and a pelvic floor physiotherapist) independently evaluated the responses using the Results: In evaluating ChatGPT-4o's performance in urinary incontinence education, experts found strong agreement in their assessments, with inter-rater reliability scores were 0.80 (95% CI: 0.70-0.91) for PEMAT and 0.82 (95% CI: 0.70-0.91) for mDISCERN. The AI's responses were consistently highly understandable, particularly when explaining diagnoses (achieving a peak score of 94.4 %), yet they were significantly less actionable, meaning they often failed to provide clear, practical steps for patients to follow. This gap was most evident in surgical considerations, which were deemed the least actionable at 68.2 %. The overall Conclusion: While ChatGPT-4o yields comprehensible health information, its limited actionability and high linguistic complexity pose barriers to patients with lower health literacy.
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.