ArticleJSES international2025
Adequacy of ChatGPT responses to frequently asked questions about shoulder arthroplasty: is it an appropriate adjunct for patient education?
Article in JSES international, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Are Arthroplasty Patients Ready for Artificial Intelligence-Integrated Care?Arthroplasty today · 2026Article
- Do ChatGPT and Gemini provide accurate answers to patient questions about glenohumeral arthritis?JSES reviews, reports, and techniques · 2026Article
- Evaluating the performance of ChatGPT in responding to myotonic dystrophy type 1 patient inquiries: a specialist physician-based study.BMC neurology · 2026Article
- Prompt Framing Modulates Safety in Shoulder and Elbow Red-Flag Vignettes: A Large Language Model Study.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Comparison of ChatGPT and Google in addressing patients' questions on robot-assisted total hip arthroplasty.Joint diseases and related surgery · 2026Article
- Appraisal of ChatGPT's responses to common patient questions regarding acromioclavicular joint dislocations.JSES reviews, reports, and techniques · 2025Article
- ChatGPT can provide satisfactory answers to patient questions regarding biceps tenodesis.JSES international · 2025Article
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
Background: Artificial intelligence (AI) large language models, such as ChatGPT, have numerous novel applications in medicine, one of which is patient education. Several studies in other specialties have investigated the adequacy of ChatGPT-generated responses to frequently asked questions (FAQs) by patients, with largely positive results. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the accuracy and clarity of ChatGPT-generated responses to website-derived FAQs relating to shoulder arthroplasty. Methods: Ten questions regarding shoulder arthroplasty were compiled from the websites of 5 leading academic institutions. These questions were rated on a scale from 1 to 4, corresponding to "excellent response not requiring clarification," "satisfactory requiring minimal clarification," "satisfactory requiring moderate clarification," and "unsatisfactory requiring substantial clarification," respectively, by 2 orthopedic surgeons. A senior shoulder arthroplasty surgeon arbitrated disagreements. Cohen's Kappa coefficient was utilized to assess inter-rater agreement. Results: After arbitration, only one response was rated as "excellent response not requiring clarification." Nine of 10 responses required clarification. Four were rated as a "satisfactory requiring minimal clarification," 5 were rated as a "satisfactory requiring moderate clarification," and none were rated as "unsatisfactory requiring substantial clarification". The Kappa coefficient was 0.516 ( Conclusion: When queried with FAQs regarding shoulder arthroplasty, ChatGPT's responses were all deemed 'satisfactory', but most required clarification. This may be due to the nuances of anatomic vs. reverse shoulder replacement. Thus, patients may find benefit in using ChatGPT to guide whether or not they should seek medical attention, but are limited in the detail and accuracy of treatment-related questions. While a helpful tool to start provider-patient conversations, it does not appear that ChatGPT provides quality, verified, data-driven answers at this time, and should be used cautiously in conjunction to provider-patient discussions. Although the use of ChatGPT in answering FAQs is limited at the moment, orthopedic surgeons should continue to monitor the use of ChatGPT as a patient education tool, as well as the expanding use of AI as a possible adjunct in clinical decision-making.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.