Analysis of Item-Level Disagreement Between Researchers and ChatGPT on the PEDro Scale for Assessing the Methodological Quality of Experimental Studies

Juan Antonio Valera-Calero; Germán Monclús-Díez; Isidro Fernández-López; Mónica López-Redondo; Sandra Sánchez-Jorge; Jorge Buffet-García; Kadriye Yasemin Usta-Ayanoğlu; Umut Varol

doi:10.1111/jebm.70145

Journal of Evidence-Based Medicine ›› 2026, Vol. 19 ›› Issue (2) :e70145 DOI: 10.1111/jebm.70145

LETTER

Analysis of Item-Level Disagreement Between Researchers and ChatGPT on the PEDro Scale for Assessing the Methodological Quality of Experimental Studies

Author information +

History +

PDF (227KB)

Cite this article

Download citation ▾

Juan Antonio Valera-Calero, Germán Monclús-Díez, Isidro Fernández-López, Mónica López-Redondo, Sandra Sánchez-Jorge, Jorge Buffet-García, Kadriye Yasemin Usta-Ayanoğlu, Umut Varol. Analysis of Item-Level Disagreement Between Researchers and ChatGPT on the PEDro Scale for Assessing the Methodological Quality of Experimental Studies. Journal of Evidence-Based Medicine, 2026, 19 (2) : e70145 DOI:10.1111/jebm.70145

登录浏览全文

4963

注册一个新账户忘记密码

References

Publishing order | Descend order by publishing year | Descend order by cited within

[1]	S. I. Bangdiwala, “The Importance of Systematic Reviews,” International Journal of Injury Control and Safety Promotion 31, no. 4 (2024): 347–349.

[2]	T. S. Jesus, S. Gianola, G. Castellini, et al., “Evolving Trends in Physiotherapy Research Publications Between 1995 and 2015,” Physiotherapy Canada 72, no. 2 (2020): 122–131.

[3]	M. J. Page, D. Moher, P. M. Bossuyt, et al., “PRISMA 2020 Explanation and Elaboration: Updated Guidance and Exemplars for Reporting Systematic Reviews,” Bmj 372 (2021): n160.

[4]	M. J. Page, J. E. McKenzie, P. M. Bossuyt, et al., “The PRISMA 2020 Statement: An Updated Guideline for Reporting Systematic Reviews,” Bmj 372 (2021): n71.

[5]	C. Maher, C. Sherrington, R. Herbert, et al., “Reliability of the PEDro Scale for Rating Quality of Randomized Controlled Trials,” Physical Therapy 83, no. 8 (2003): 713–721.

[6]	R. Herbert, C. Sherrington, A. Moseley, et al., “PEDro,” Manual Therapy 5, no. 1 (2000): 49.

[7]	N. A. de Morton, “The PEDro Scale Is a Valid Measure of the Methodological Quality of Clinical Trials: A Demographic Study,” The Australian Journal of Physiotherapy 55, no. 2 (2009): 129–133.

[8]	S. H. B. Van Dijk, M. G. J. Brusse-Keizer, C. C. Bucsán, et al., “Artificial Intelligence in Systematic Reviews: Promising When Appropriately Used,” BMJ Open 13, no. 9 (2023): e072254.

[9]	M. Paci, C. Bianchini, and M. Baccini, “Reliability of the PEDro Scale: Comparison Between Trials Published in Predatory and Non-predatory Journals,” Arch Physiotherapy 12, no. 1 (2022): 9.

[10]	S. D. Walter, M. Eliasziw, and A. Donner, “Sample Size and Optimal Designs for Reliability Studies,” Statistics in Medicine 17, no. 1 (1998): 101–110.

[11]	T. K. Koo and M. Y. Li, “A Guideline of Selecting and Reporting Intraclass Correlation Coefficients for Reliability Research,” Journal of Chiropractic Medicine 15, no. 2 (2016): 155–163.

[12]	K. Kolaski, L. R. Logan, and J. P. A. Ioannidis, “Guidance to Best Tools and Practices for Systematic Reviews,” Systematic Review 12, no. 1 (2023): 96.

[13]	“PEDro Scale,” Cited 2025 Sep 23, https://pedro.org.au/english/resources/pedro-scale/.

Rights & permissions

2026 The Author(s). Journal of Evidence-Based Medicine published by Chinese Cochrane Center, West China Hospital of Sichuan University and John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd.