ArticleCureus2026
Anesthesiologists' Assessment of the Correctness, Completeness, and Coherence of ChatGPT Answers to Patient Preoperative Questions.
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
Introduction Patients are increasingly turning to large language models (LLMs) for answers. However, LLMs like ChatGPT are relatively new technology and are untested for this purpose. Inconsistency and "hallucinations" are commonly described problems with LLMs. This study tested the consistency, correctness, completeness, and coherence of answers to frequently asked patient questions, as scored by expert anesthesiologists. Methods We gathered commonly asked patient questions from professional association websites. Patient partners were consulted to confirm relevance of the questions. A subset of questions was tested for consistency using intraclass correlation ICC (3,k) across multiple leading prompts. Then anesthesiologists and trainees scored the responses on a Likert scale for 10 anesthesia-related patient questions, with and without a leading prompt. Interrater agreement was calculated, and Likert scores were described. Results In terms of consistency, all ICC (3,k) values were below the prespecified threshold of 0.75, although confidence intervals were wide. Overall median ratings of the correctness, completeness, and coherence of each question ranged from 3.4 to 3.9, corresponding to average ratings between "good" and "very good." Ratings for all responses were similar regardless of whether the question was submitted with or without the prompt. Excellent scores were rarer, receiving 81 (16%) for correctness, 66 (13%) for completeness, and 121 (23%) for coherence. Discussion ChatGPT offers appropriate and moderately consistent answers to anesthesia-related patient questions. Anesthesiologists should be aware that while ChatGPT responses are generally correct, complete, and coherent, this does not translate to patient comprehension, and the answers may not be appropriate for the particular patient and institution.
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.