The widespread implementation of artificial intelligence technologies provides an appealing alternative to traditional search engines for online patient healthcare education. This study assessed ChatGPT-3.5’s capabilities as a source of obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) information, using Google Search as a comparison. Ten frequently searched questions related to OSA were entered into Google Search and ChatGPT-3.5. The responses were assessed by two independent researchers using the Global Quality Score (GQS), Patient Education Materials Assessment Tool (PEMAT), DISCERN instrument, CLEAR tool, and readability scores (Flesch Reading Ease and Flesch–Kincaid Grade Level). ChatGPT-3.5 significantly outperformed Google Search in terms of GQS (5.00 vs. 2.50, p < 0.0001), DISCERN reliability (35.00 vs. 29.50, p = 0.001), and quality (11.50 vs. 7.00, p = 0.02). The CLEAR tool scores indicated that ChatGPT-3.5 provided excellent content (25.00 vs. 15.50, p < 0.001). PEMAT scores showed higher understandability (60–91% vs. 44–80%) and actionability for ChatGPT-3.5 (0–40% vs. 0%). Readability analysis revealed that Google Search responses were easier to read (FRE: 56.05 vs. 22.00; FKGL: 9.00 vs. 14.00, p < 0.0001). ChatGPT-3.5 delivers higher quality and more comprehensive OSA information compared to Google Search, although its responses are less readable. This suggests that while ChatGPT-3.5 can be a valuable tool for patient education, efforts to improve readability are necessary to ensure accessibility and utility for all patients. Healthcare providers should be aware of the strengths and weaknesses of various healthcare information resources and emphasize the importance of critically evaluating online health information, advising patients on its reliability and relevance.

The Internet is a preferred source of health information. This study evaluated the quality, reliability and content of online audio-visual information on the mandibular advancement device (MAD) for the treatment of obstructive sleep apnea (OSA). “Mandibular advancement device” was searched on four online platforms. A total of 63 videos (51% from healthcare professionals, 22% from commercial companies, 21% from laypeople, and 6% from hospitals/universities) were evaluated using metrics, the video information and quality index (VIQI), modified-DISCERN, and the Journal of American Medical Association (JAMA) benchmark criteria and contents. VIQI had significantly lower scores for videos uploaded by laypeople (mean 7.92, 95%CI 5.90–9.95) versus healthcare professionals (12.38, 95%CI 11.28–13.47) and commercial companies (11.21, 95%CI 9.61–12.81). The m-DISCERN scores were significantly lower for laypeople (1.15, 95%CI 0.93–1.40) versus healthcare professionals (2.13, 95%CI 1.73–2.52) and hospitals/universities (3.00, 95%CI 1.70–4.30), as well as for commercial companies (1.43, 95%CI 1.13-1.73) versus hospitals/universities. Contents were significantly less complete for laypeople (1.54, 95%CI 0.60–2.48) versus healthcare professionals (3.25, 95%CI 2.66–3.84). The results of the present study suggest that the quality and completeness of online audio-visual information with respect to the use of MAD for the treatment of OSA are generally poor, and the currently available videos, especially those uploaded by laypeople, may determine misinformation and/or unrealistic treatment expectations.