ArticleJournal of medical systems2026
Development and Nationwide Multicentre Evaluation of Guideline-Grounded Large Language Model Chatbots to Support Patient Self-Management and Education in Rheumatology.
Article in Journal of medical systems, 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
22 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Patients with rheumatic diseases have persistent information needs that are not fully addressed in routine care. We developed and evaluated guideline-grounded, large language model (LLM) chatbots to support patient self-management and education in rheumatology.Ten disease-specific chatbots based on German guidelines were co-developed and deployed through 13 rheumatology centres and six patient organisations. Chatbot users rated responses and completed a questionnaire. User questions, feedback, and response characteristics were analysed using category-based coding and a six-dimensional LLM-as-a-judge assessment, with LLM-based ratings compared with rheumatologist ratings in random subsets.Between September 2025 and January 2026, 6291 questions were recorded. Thirteen question categories were identified, most commonly disease-specific questions (50.2%), medication and monitoring (37.3%) and diagnostics (28.2%). The chatbots were unable to answer in 263 interactions (4.2%). Of 2671 responses rated by users, 2481 (92.9%) received a positive rating. Insufficient detail was the most common reason for negative ratings (125/190, 65.8%). Among 602 questionnaire respondents, 84.6% reported that the chatbot was easy to use, 84.1% that answers were easy to understand, and 80.2% that it was a useful addition to patient education. In the LLM-based evaluation, 95.3% of answers were rated as completely safe and 79.1% as completely correct. Guideline adherence was assessed separately, with 45.0% rated as fully adherent; agreement with physician assessment was weak.Guideline-grounded chatbots received predominantly positive user feedback in real-world use, while LLM-based evaluation suggested that most responses were safe and correct. User questions and feedback may help guide iterative improvements to source content and patient education materials. Further studies are needed to evaluate educational effectiveness and independently validate response quality and clinical safety.
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.