ArticleArchives of plastic surgery2026
The Use of Artificial Intelligence to Improve Readability and Quality of Informed Consent Forms in Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery.
Article in Archives of plastic 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The readability and length of informed consent forms have been debated for over three decades. Despite national guidelines promoting patient-friendly language, many forms fall short. This study compares the readability and content quality of informed consents from the American Society of Plastic Surgeons (ASPS) and ChatGPT for common plastic and reconstructive surgery (PRS) procedures. Methods: ASPS consents for seven common PRS procedures were obtained online. ChatGPT was then queried to create equivalent consents. Readability was assessed using the Flesch Reading Ease Score, Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level, and Lexical Density. Quality was graded using a modified National Quality Forum-based scale across domains: Procedure description, clinical rationale, patient-oriented benefit, quantitative and qualitative risks, and alternatives. Scores were compared between ASPS and ChatGPT consent forms. Results: ASPS versus ChatGPT conversion yielded mean Flesch scores of 30.09 versus 46.18 ( Conclusion: ChatGPT improved the readability and brevity of PRS consent forms while maintaining accuracy. Readily available artificial intelligence (AI) tools may enhance descriptions of procedures, rationale, patient benefits, and quantitative risks, offering a practical tool to aid in patient-provider communication.
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.