ArticleJournal of robotic surgery2026
Comparative performance of artificial intelligence chatbots in patient education for robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: quality, transparency and readability.
Article in Journal of robotic surgery, 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
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Patients undergoing robot-assisted radical prostatectomy require complex counseling regarding treatment selection, cancer control, urinary continence, sexual function, postoperative therapy, and long-term follow-up. The suitability of artificial intelligence chatbots for providing such information remains uncertain. Twenty clinician-developed patient-education questions on robot-assisted radical prostatectomy were submitted to ChatGPT-o3, DeepSeek-V4, Claude Sonnet 5, and Gemini 3.5 Pro. Responses were evaluated using DISCERN, the Ensuring Quality Information for Patients (EQIP) tool, the Global Quality Scale (GQS), and the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) benchmark criteria. Readability was assessed using six established indices. Between-model differences were analyzed using nonparametric tests with corrected post hoc comparisons. Information-quality scores differed significantly across models for DISCERN, EQIP, and GQS. DeepSeek-V4 achieved the highest DISCERN (61.90 ± 2.92), EQIP (91.75 ± 8.32), GQS (4.50 ± 0.51), and JAMA (3.00 ± 0.00) scores. Gemini 3.5 Pro showed relatively lower information-quality scores among the evaluated models. ChatGPT-o3 and DeepSeek-V4 demonstrated relatively favorable readability on different indices; however, all models exceeded the recommended sixth-grade reading level, and all Flesch Reading Ease scores remained below the easy-to-read threshold. AI chatbots varied substantially in the quality, transparency, and readability of information on robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. Although some models provided comparatively stronger patient education, none consistently produced sufficiently accessible information. These tools may supplement, but should not replace, individualized counseling by urologists and multidisciplinary prostate cancer teams.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42618685What 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.