ArticlePerspectives in clinical research
Development and validation of patient information leaflet for coronary heart disease patients.
Article in Perspectives in clinical research. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Enhancing patient understanding of ovarian cancer: creation, validation and user-readability evaluation of an education booklet.Gynecologic oncology reports · 2026Article
- Article
- Empowering self-care through patient education in heart failure patients: A multimodal approach comprising of P-PILs, videos, and personalized advice.Journal of education and health promotion · 2024Article
- A cross-sectional audit of informed consent of online survey: Characteristics and adherence to prevalent guidelines.Perspectives in clinical researchArticle
- Development, validation, and usefulness of patient information leaflet for women undergoing Caesarean section.Saudi journal of anaesthesiaArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPatient information leaflets (PILs) are effectively used to improve the patient's knowledge about medications, disease, diet, and lifestyle modifications.
aimThis study aims to develop and evaluate PILs for coronary heart disease patients. MATERIALS AND
methodsPrimary, secondary, and tertiary resources were used to develop PILs. The developed PILs were validated by four doctors, four academic pharmacists, and one dietician. PILs design and layout was prepared using barker able leaflet design (BALD) criteria. PILs readability was assessed using the Flesch Reading Ease test (FRE), Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level (FKGL), and user readability methods. User opinion on PILs content and design was obtained from patients.
resultsThe FRE and FKGL readability scores were 61.5 and 7.4, respectively. The BALD criteria scores for English, Kannada, and Malayalam PILs were 28, 27, and 26, respectively. The overall user testing readability means scores had significantly improved from 45 to 79.30. Nearly 82.55% of patients rated the PILs as good design and content.
conclusionThe developed leaflet met the standard criteria for easy reading and comprehension. The majority of the patients gave good opinion on the content and design of the PILs.
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.