ArticleRevista brasileira de ortopedia2026
[Rotator Cuff Surgery and Artificial Intelligence: A Comparative Analysis of Quality and Readability Between ChatGPT and Gemini].
Article in Revista brasileira de ortopedia, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: Artificial intelligence (AI) tools based on natural language, such as ChatGPT 4.1 mini (OpenAI Group PBC) and Gemini 2.5 Flash (Alphabet Inc.), are used by patients as sources of medical information. The current study aimed to evaluate and compare the quality and readability of responses provided by these AIs, in Brazilian Portuguese, regarding rotator cuff surgery. Methods: The present cross-sectional, descriptive, and comparative study followed qualitative and quantitative approaches. A total of 24 frequently-asked patient questions were used, classified according to Rothwell. Each question was entered individually into both platforms, and only the first response was considered. The quality assessment used the DISCERN instrument, developed by the University of Oxford and the British Library, and the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) benchmark criteria. Readability was estimated using Análise de Legibilidade Textual (ALT, "Text Readibility Anallysis", in Portuguese) software, validated for Brazilian Portuguese. The statistical analyses included the Wilcoxon and Friedman tests, repeated-measures analysis of variance (ANOVA), and the Conover post-hoc test with Bonferroni correction. Results: ChatGPT achieved a mean DISCERN score of 58.7 ± 4.0, and Gemini, 56.3 ± 3.5, with no significant difference ( Conclusion: ChatGPT 4.1 mini and Gemini 2.5 Flash do not yet provide adequate medical information in Brazilian Portuguese regarding editorial reliability, quality, and textual accessibility for the general public.
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.