ArticleArchives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery2026
Expert evaluation of ChatGPT-generated responses to patient questions in conventional and fast-track total knee arthroplasty.
Article in Archives of orthopaedic and trauma 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundFast-track total knee arthroplasty (TKA) asks patients to understand early mobilization, early discharge, opioid-sparing analgesia, and selective use of drains and catheters. We evaluated expert-rated quality of ChatGPT responses to patient questions about these pathway-specific concepts alongside conventional TKA questions. MATERIALS AND
methodsIn this cross-sectional evaluation, three arthroplasty surgeons independently scored responses to 50 conventional TKA and 20 investigator-developed fast-track questions in four domains on 5-point scales. The conventional questions were selected by a multidisciplinary panel; the fast-track questions did not undergo the same selection process. Response-level means were compared descriptively and with exploratory Mann-Whitney U tests.
resultsSeventy responses received 210 expert assessments. Recalculated mean ± SD scores across individual ratings were 4.99 ± 0.15 for accuracy, 4.98 ± 0.14 for completeness, 4.98 ± 0.17 for safety, and 5.00 ± 0.07 for readability. Each of the 20 fast-track responses received a score of 5 from each of the three raters in all four domains (Supplementary Table S1). Nevertheless, question-set construction differed and scores clustered at the ceiling, so the exploratory comparison does not establish equivalence.
conclusionsExperts gave high ratings to the evaluated responses, including those on fast-track concepts. The observed data do not establish equivalence between question sets: the fast-track ratings require source-data verification, the sets were selected differently, and scores were concentrated at the maximum. Clinician review remains appropriate for protocol-dependent and safety-related advice.
trial registrationNot applicable.
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.