Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42293805›Full record

ArticlePlastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open2026

Pilot Study: ChatGPT-enabled Task Sharing and Team Building Improve Workflow in Lymphedema Care.

Makoto Mihara, Hisako Hara, Yohei Iwanaga, Hiroki Yoshida

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global 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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Makoto MiharaFrom the Lymphedema Clinic Tokyo, Tokyo, Japan.
Hisako HaraFrom the Lymphedema Clinic Tokyo, Tokyo, Japan.
Yohei IwanagaFrom the Lymphedema Clinic Tokyo, Tokyo, Japan.
Hiroki YoshidaData Seed Inc., Tokyo, Japan.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Lymphedema care requires multidisciplinary collaboration, substantial documentation, and interfacility communication. Large language models, including ChatGPT, may streamline these processes and support team-based care; however, concerns remain regarding accuracy, privacy, and governance. Methods: We conducted a cross-sectional, anonymous survey at a lymphedema specialty clinic in Tokyo 24 months after ChatGPT implementation (May 2023), following STROBE guidelines. All staff (N = 12; physicians, nurses, therapists, and administrative staff; mean age 39.6 y) participated. Responses were collected using 5-point Likert scales and multiple-choice formats, and descriptive statistics were summarized. Results: All staff reported using ChatGPT at least once, with frequent use reported by 58.3%. Efficiency improved in 83.3% (Likert 4-5), and preparation time for information-sharing materials decreased in all respondents (≤50% in 33.3%, ≤30% in 41.7%). Primary uses included drafting documents/emails (~92%) and referral reports (~83%). ChatGPT improved external communication (mean Likert score 4.42/5), reduced perceived work-related stress, and increased confidence (≥4 in 66.7%). Staff reported moderate trust, occasional hallucinations, and the need for training and guidelines. Privacy concerns were noted by more than half of respondents. Conclusions: ChatGPT enhanced efficiency, communication, and teamwork in a lymphedema clinic while reducing stress. Safe use requires human oversight, verification processes, and privacy safeguards. Under appropriate governance, large language models may facilitate task sharing and support clinical education, including prelearning for lymphatic ultrasound. We believe this version retains the essential points while meeting the journal's requirements.

Identifiers

PMID42293805
PMCPMC13263101

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.