ArticleJournal of the American Heart Association2020
Readability of Online Patient Educational Materials for Coronary Artery Calcium Scans and Implications for Health Disparities.
Article in Journal of the American Heart Association, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 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
15 citing papers in PubMed.
- Caregivers' knowledge, attitudes and practices regarding sleep care for 0-3 year-old children: a cross-sectional study.BMC pediatrics · 2026Article
- Artificial Intelligence in Peripheral Artery Disease Education: A Battle Between ChatGPT and Google Gemini.Cureus · 2025Article
- Readability Metrics in Patient Education: Where Do We Innovate?Clinics and practice · 2024Article
- Article
- Search engine optimization and its association with readability and accessibility of diabetic retinopathy websites.Graefe's archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology = Albrecht von Graefes Archiv fur klinische und experimentelle Ophthalmologie · 2024Article
- Quality of ChatGPT Responses to Frequently Asked Questions in Carpal Tunnel Release Surgery.Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open · 2024Article
- Contemporary attitudes and beliefs on coronary artery calcium from social media using artificial intelligence.NPJ digital medicine · 2024Article
- Can Artificial Intelligence Improve the Readability of Patient Education Materials on Aortic Stenosis? A Pilot Study.Cardiology and therapy · 2024Article
- Readability and reliability of online patient education materials about statins.American journal of preventive cardiology · 2023Article
- Assessing readability and comprehension of web-based patient education materials by American Heart Association (AHA) and CardioSmart online platform by American College of Cardiology (ACC): How useful are these websites for patient understanding?American heart journal plus : cardiology research and practice · 2023Article
- Article
- ChatGPT and Clinical Training: Perception, Concerns, and Practice of Pharm-D Students.Journal of multidisciplinary healthcare · 2023Article
- Health Literacy Analytics of Accessible Patient Resources in Cardiovascular Medicine: What are Patients Wanting to Know?Kansas journal of medicine · 2023Article
- Online Patient Education Materials Related to Lipoprotein(a): Readability Assessment.Journal of medical Internet research · 2022Article
- Readability of Online Patient Educational Materials for Coronary Artery Calcium Scans and Implications for Health Disparities.Journal of the American Heart Association · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Background Coronary artery calcium (CAC) scans can help reclassify risk and guide patient-clinician shared treatment decisions for cardiovascular disease prevention. Patients increasingly access online patient educational materials (OPEMs) to guide medical decision-making. The American Medical Association (AMA) recommends that OPEMs should be written below a 6th-grade reading level. This study estimated the readability of commonly accessed OPEMs on CAC scans. Methods and Results The terms "coronary artery calcium scan," "heart scan," and "CAC score" were queried using an online search engine to identify the top 50 commonly accessed websites based on order of search results on December 17, 2019. Grade-level readability was calculated using generalized estimating equations, with observations nested within readability metrics from each website. Results were compared with AMA-recommended readability parameters. Overall grade-level readability among all search terms was 10.9 (95% CI, 9.3-12.5). Average grade-level readability of OPEMs for the search terms "coronary artery calcium scan," "heart scan," and "CAC score," was 10.7 (95% CI, 9.0-12.5), 10.5 (95% CI, 8.9-12.1), and 11.9 (95% CI, 10.3-13.5), respectively. Professional society and news/media/blog websites had the highest average reading grade level of 12.6, while health system websites had the lowest average reading grade level of 10.0. Less than half of the unique websites (45.3%) included explanatory images or videos. Conclusions Current OPEMs on CAC scans are written at a higher reading level than recommended for the general public. This may lead to patient misunderstanding, which could exacerbate disparities in cardiovascular health among groups with lower health literacy.
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.