ArticleDigital health
ChatGPT as a source of surgical information: Evaluation of responses to patient questions on hallux rigidus fusion.
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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Patients are increasingly turning to online resources and artificial intelligence (AI)-based tools to obtain information about orthopedic conditions and surgical options. Large language models, such as ChatGPT, are becoming prominent in patient education; however, their reliability and readability remain uncertain. This study evaluated the quality and readability of responses generated by ChatGPT-4o and ChatGPT-5 to frequently asked patient questions regarding hallux rigidus fusion surgery. Methods: Twenty commonly asked patient questions were compiled and presented to ChatGPT-4o and ChatGPT-5. Readability was assessed using the Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level, Gunning Fog, Coleman-Liau, and Simple Measure of Gobbledygook indices. Quality was evaluated with the DISCERN tool, response accuracy scores, and Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) criteria. Interrater agreement was measured using the Intraclass Correlation Coefficient (ICC). Results: ChatGPT-4o generated longer responses (802 vs. 242 words; p<0.001) with slightly higher readability grade levels (10.81 vs. 10.37; p=0.031). Accuracy (2.00 vs. 1.85; p=0.323) and DISCERN scores (49.35 vs. 48.93; p=0.747) showed no significant differences. All responses received a JAMA score of 0 due to the absence of citations, authorship, or transparency indicators. Interrater reliability indicated moderate to good agreement (ICC: 0.68-0.80). Conclusion: ChatGPT-4o and ChatGPT-5 provide generally satisfactory yet non-comprehensive, limited-quality information at a level above tenth-grade regarding hallux rigidus fusion surgery. Although linguistically coherent, responses lack evidence-based detail and individualized guidance. These models may supplement, but cannot replace, expert orthopedic counseling. Ensuring physician oversight and integrating validated, updated clinical content remain essential for safe implementation of AI-generated patient information.
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.