ChatGPT in pharmacy practice: disruptive or destructive innovation? A scoping review
Open accessAbstract
ChatGPT has emerged as a promising tool for enhancing clinical practice. However, its implementation raises critical questions about its impact on this field. In this scoping review, we explored the utility of ChatGPT in pharmacy practice. A search was conducted in five databases up to 23 May 2024. Studies analyzing the use of ChatGPT with direct or potential applications in pharmacy practice were included. A total of 839 records were identified, of which 14 studies were included: six tested ChatGPT version 3.5, three tested version 4.0, three tested both versions, one used version 3.0, and one did not specify the version. Only half of the studies evaluated ChatGPT in real-world scenarios. A reasonable number of papers analyzed the use of ChatGPT in pharmacy practice, highlighting both benefits and limitations. The studies indicated that ChatGPT is not fully prepared for use in pharmacy practice due to significant limitations. However, there is great potential for its application in this context in the near future, following further improvements to the tool. Further exploration of its use in pharmacy practice is required, along with proposing its conscious and appropriate utilization.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Previous reviews of LLM use within patient care have often overlooked pharmacy-specific applications.
“However, previous reviews of LLM use within patient care have often overlooked pharmacyspecific applications.”
From Large Language Models in Pharmacist-Led Direct Patient Care: A Rapid Review of Published Evaluations (2026) · cites this paper as [20]
The Introduction (page unavailable) says that no prior scoping review had synthesized studies of ChatGPT in pharmacy practice, supporting a gap in pharmacy-specific review coverage. It does not establish that reviews of LLM use in patient care often overlooked pharmacy applications. (LLM, conf=0.82)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThis finding aligns with a previous review of ChatGPT in pharmacy practice, which highlighted a lack of standardized evaluation methods, and with broader healthcare reviews calling for standardized LLM evaluation approaches.
“This finding aligns with a previous review of ChatGPT in pharmacy practice, which highlighted a lack of standardized evaluation methods, 20 and with broader healthcare reviews calling for standardized LLM evaluation approaches.14,15”
From Large Language Models in Pharmacist-Led Direct Patient Care: A Rapid Review of Published Evaluations (2026) · cites this paper as [20]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 42 · Cited by 6
- Authors
- Lima, T. D. M., Bonafé, M., Baby, A. R., & Visacri, M. B.
- Affiliations
- Universidade Federal Fluminense (BR)
- Universidade de São Paulo (BR)
- Corresponding author
- Baby, André Rolim
- Visacri, Marília Berlofa
- Venue
- Scientia Pharmaceutica
- Publisher
- MDPI AG
- Published
- 2024-10-21
- Volume
- 92
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 58
- ISSN
- 0036-8709 (ISSN-L)
- 2218-0532
- OpenAlex
- W4403601708
- Cited by
- 6
- References
- 42
- Citations by year
- 2026: 5 · 2025: 1
- FWCI
- 0.56
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Scientia Pharmaceutica (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo (24/01920-0)
- Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico (303862/2022-0, 303862)
- Universidade de São Paulo
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Health Informatics › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
- Life Sciences › Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics › Pharmacology › Pharmacy and Medical Practices
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Artificial Intelligence Applications
- Keywords
- ChatGPT, large language models, pharmacy practice, artificial intelligence in pharmacy, disruptive innovation, clinical decision support, generative AI limitations
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
