ArticleBMC nursing2025
Chat generative pre-trained transformers era: pros and cons between nursing researchers in Egypt.
Article in BMC nursing, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- A systematic review of the limitations of large language models in generating healthcare content.PLOS digital health · 2026Article
- Mapping applications and evaluations of LLM-enabled AI chatbots for health purposes: a scoping review.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAn artificial intelligence chatbot called Chat Generative Pre-Trained Transformers (ChatGPT) was created by OpenAI. It gained a lot of interest and attention from the scientific and academic sectors since its November 2022 launch.
aimTo identify ChatGPT pros and cons between nursing researchers in Egypt.
methodsA descriptive (cross sectional) research design was conducted on a convenient sample of 1001 nursing researchers from faculties of nursing related to the Supreme Council of Universities. Two tools were used: demographic and technical characteristics, and nursing researchers' opinion questionnaire.
resultsThe majority of the participants (81.4%) thought that using ChatGPT had significant advantages. However, 44.7% of the cons were disclosed. Almost two-thirds of nursing researchers stated that they are concerned about patient confidentiality (65.6%), that it could lead to incorrect conclusions (68.8%), and that it could have medicolegal repercussions (68.6%). As a result, they are reluctant to use AI chatbots in healthcare decisions (67.8%). CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS: ChatGPT had benefits but at the same time associated with drawbacks and needs to be used wisely to avoid these drawbacks. Enhance ChatGPT's ability to foster reflective practice to enhance decision-making and critical thinking while bridging the theoretical and practical knowledge gaps in nursing research.
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.