ArticlePatient preference and adherence2013
Assessment of the quality of existing patient educational tools focused on sudden cardiac arrest: a systematic evaluation by the Sudden Cardiac Arrest Thought Leadership Alliance.
Article in Patient preference and adherence, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Evaluation of Online Written Medication Educational Resources for People Living With Heart Failure.CJC open · 2022Article
- A review of decision support, risk communication and patient information tools for thrombolytic treatment in acute stroke: lessons for tool developers.BMC health services research · 2013Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundConveying contemporary treatment options for those at risk of sudden cardiac arrest (SCA) is challenging. The purpose of the present research was to evaluate the quality and usability of available patient educational tools relevant to SCA and its treatment options, such as implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs). We hypothesized that this review would identify gaps in areas of information for the enhancement of patient education and decision-making materials.
methodsWe used a formal instrument to assess specific domains of content, development, and effectiveness of 18 available SCA and ICD educational tools. The multidisciplinary review panel included two electrophysiologists, two general cardiologists, a cardiac psychologist, a health services researcher, and a patient advocate.
resultsOf the 18 education tools, four were rated as "good, may need revisions, but sufficient for use", 12 were rated as "marginal, needs revision prior to use", and two were rated as "poor, inadequate for use". None of the tools were rated as being of "very good" or "excellent" quality.
conclusionThere appear to be opportunities to improve the quality and completeness of existing educational tools for patients with SCA and ICD. While many tools have been developed, they fall below current standards for supporting informed medical decision-making.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.