Copyright: ©Author(s) 2026.
World J Methodol. Sep 20, 2026; 16(3): 116022
Published online Sep 20, 2026. doi: 10.5662/wjm.v16.i3.116022
Published online Sep 20, 2026. doi: 10.5662/wjm.v16.i3.116022
Table 2 Patient-rated domains and scoring criteria
| Domain | Scale | Description | Example anchors |
| Comprehensibility | 1-4 | How easy is the answer to understand? | 1 = very hard to understand, overly technical or confusing; 4 = very easy to understand, written in clear layman’s terms |
| Empathy | 1-4 | Did the tone feel caring and supportive? | 1 = not at all empathetic; 4 = very empathetic and supportive in tone |
| Actionability | 1-5 | Is the advice useful and feasible? Would the reader know what to do next after reading? | 1 = not actionable or no advice; 5 = extremely actionable with clear, helpful next steps |
- Citation: Goyal K, Goyal MK, Taranikanti V, Wander P, Chowdhary R, Kalra S, Prashar G, Vuthaluru AR, Goyal O. Do bots provide correct and adequate guidance regarding acidity: A blinded comparison rated by patients and physicians. World J Methodol 2026; 16(3): 116022
- URL: https://www.wjgnet.com/2222-0682/full/v16/i3/116022.htm
- DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.5662/wjm.v16.i3.116022