ArticleEuropean archives of oto-rhino-laryngology : official journal of the European Federation of Oto-Rhino-Laryngological Societies (EUFOS) : affiliated with the German Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology - Head and Neck Surgery2026
Large language models for tympanostomy patient education: readability and guideline adherence.
Article in European archives of oto-rhino-laryngology : official journal of the European Federation of Oto-Rhino-Laryngological Societies (EUFOS) : affiliated with the German Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology - Head and Neck 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo evaluate the accuracy and readability of large language model (LLM)-generated patient education materials regarding tympanostomy tube placement.
methodsOver a two-month period, ChatGPT 4o, Gemini 2.5 Flash, and Google Search AI were prompted daily using long-form and layered prompt formats covering typical concerns regarding tympanostomy. Responses were scored on a 12-point rubric adapted from the AAO-HNS Clinical Practice Guidelines (CPG), assessing diagnostic accuracy, procedural clarity, and postoperative care. Readability was evaluated using Flesch Reading Ease and Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level. For each model and prompt type, average scores and variability were analyzed with 95% confidence intervals. Between-model differences were tested with Welch's t-tests and Cohen's d; temporal trends were analyzed via linear regression.
resultsFor long-form outputs, Google Search AI and Gemini 2.5 Flash demonstrated the highest mean CPG adherence (96.4% and 96.6%, respectively), both significantly exceeding ChatGPT 4o (84.3%; both P < .001; Cohen's d ≈ 2.05). For layered prompt sessions, Google Search AI again demonstrated the highest adherence (91.7%), followed by Gemini 2.5 Flash (88.1%) and ChatGPT 4o (76.2%). Guideline adherence was temporally stable across all models (P > .05 for most). All outputs exceeded the recommended sixth-grade reading threshold (mean FKGL, 9.4 for long-form; 10.6 for layered), with no statistically significant readability differences between prompt strategies.
conclusionsGoogle Search AI demonstrated the highest guideline concordance, though all models produced material too complex for typical patient comprehension. Structured prompting enhances clinical accuracy, but readability remains a key barrier to accessibility.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42747529What 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.