ReviewUrology annals
Assessing the quality and readability of patient information available for shockwave lithotripsy: Human versus artificial intelligence comparison of resources and quality measurements - A benchmarking study from European association of urology (EAU) endourology.
Review in Urology annals. 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Shockwave lithotripsy (SWL) is a noninvasive method for removing stones, primarily used for small, uncomplicated urinary stones, as the number of kidney stone cases continues to rise. With rising patient numbers, online information must be accurate and easy to understand. We assessed the quality and readability of SWL information available online and compared it with leaflets created by generative artificial intelligence (AI). The top 20 search results for four SWL-related terms on Google, Yahoo, and Bing were collected and duplicates removed. Generative Artificial Intelligence (GAI) platforms such as ChatGPT, Gemini, and DeepSeek generated a patient leaflet. Two authors evaluated quality using DISCERN and JAMA scores and readability using Flesch Reading Ease Score (FRES) and Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level (FKGL). Later, ChatGPT reviewed the AI-generated information with DISCERN. A total of 68 websites were included. The quality assessments showed average websites with AI-leaflet DISCERN scores of 52.4 (±8.91) and 58.7 (±5.03), JAMA Benchmark scores of 2.22 (±1.10) and 0, FRES of 52.1 (±13.8) and 51.5 (±8.05), and FKGL scores of 9.04 (±2.36) and 8.93 (±1.10). No significant differences were seen in DISCERN (
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.