Artificial intelligence‐based chatbot patient information on common retinal diseases using ChatGPT

Summary Background To contribute to the WHO initiative, VISION 2020: The Right to Sight, an assessment of global vision impairment in 2020 and temporal change is needed. We aimed to extensively update estimates of global vision loss burden, presenting estimates for 2020, temporal change over three decades between 1990–2020, and forecasts for 2050. Methods We did a systematic review and meta-analysis of population-based surveys of eye disease from January, 1980, to October, 2018. Only studies with samples representative of the population and with clearly defined visual acuity testing protocols were included. We fitted hierarchical models to estimate 2020 prevalence (with 95% uncertainty intervals [UIs]) of mild vision impairment (presenting visual acuity ≥6/18 and <6/12), moderate and severe vision impairment (<6/18 to 3/60), and blindness (<3/60 or less than 10° visual field around central fixation); and vision impairment from uncorrected presbyopia (presenting near vision

To identify and describe misunderstandings between patients and doctors associated with prescribing decisions in general practice. Qualitative study. 20 general practices in the West Midlands and south east England. 20 general practitioners and 35 consulting patients. Misunderstandings between patients and doctors that have potential or actual adverse consequences for taking medicine. 14 categories of misunderstanding were identified relating to patient information unknown to the doctor, doctor information unknown to the patient, conflicting information, disagreement about attribution of side effects, failure of communication about doctor's decision, and relationship factors. All the misunderstandings were associated with lack of patients' participation in the consultation in terms of the voicing of expectations and preferences or the voicing of responses to doctors' decisions and actions. They were all associated with potential or actual adverse outcomes such as non-adherence to treatment. Many were based on inaccurate guesses and assumptions. In particular doctors seemed unaware of the relevance of patients' ideas about medicines for successful prescribing. Patients' participation in the consultation and the adverse consequences of lack of participation are important. The authors are developing an educational intervention that builds on these findings.

Background Both clinicians and patients use medical mobile phone apps. Anyone can publish medical apps, which leads to contents with variable quality that may have a serious impact on human lives. We herein provide an overview of the prevalence of expert involvement in app development and whether or not app contents adhere to current medical evidence. Objective To systematically review studies evaluating expert involvement or adherence of app content to medical evidence in medical mobile phone apps. Methods We systematically searched 3 databases (PubMed, The Cochrane Library, and EMBASE), and included studies evaluating expert involvement or adherence of app content to medical evidence in medical mobile phone apps. Two authors performed data extraction independently. Qualitative analysis of the included studies was performed. Results Based on inclusion criteria, 52 studies were included in this review. These studies assessed a total of 6520 apps. Studies dealt with a variety of medical specialties and topics. As much as 28 studies assessed expert involvement, which was found in 9-67% of the assessed apps. Thirty studies (including 6 studies that also assessed expert involvement) assessed adherence of app content to current medical evidence. Thirteen studies found that 10-87% of the assessed apps adhered fully to the compared evidence (published studies, recommendations, and guidelines). Seventeen studies found that none of the assessed apps (n=2237) adhered fully to the compared evidence. Conclusions Most medical mobile phone apps lack expert involvement and do not adhere to relevant medical evidence.