ArticleCureus2026
Evaluating ChatGPT's Role in Patient Education on Distraction Osteogenesis for Limb Lengthening.
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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundLimb lengthening requires patients to understand a complex procedure, a prolonged recovery, and potential complications. This study evaluated the quality, reliability, readability, and clinical completeness of ChatGPT-3.5 (OpenAI, San Francisco, CA) responses to common patient questions about limb lengthening. METHODOLOGY: In this descriptive, cross-sectional content analysis, a purposive sample of 10 commonly encountered and clinically relevant questions was identified from the frequently asked questions pages of 10 healthcare institutions. Each question was entered separately into ChatGPT-3.5 on January 18, 2024, without follow-up prompts. Two senior authors independently evaluated each response against published literature and scored it with the Quality Criteria for Consumer Health Information (DISCERN) instrument, Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) benchmark criteria, and Flesch-Kincaid grade level. Outcomes were summarized descriptively, and interrater agreement was assessed with the Cohen kappa coefficient.
resultsThe mean DISCERN score was 35.5 (range: 21-42). One response was rated very poor, seven were rated poor, and two were rated fair. Every response received a JAMA benchmark score of 0. The mean Flesch-Kincaid grade level was 13.6 (range: 12.3-15.7), indicating postsecondary reading demand.
conclusionsChatGPT-3.5 provided broad introductory information, but most responses lacked transparent sources, required clinical clarification, and were too complex for general patient education. It may be useful as a clinician-reviewed adjunct but should not replace individualized counseling by a qualified healthcare professional.
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.