ArticleCJC open2022
Evaluation of Online Written Medication Educational Resources for People Living With Heart Failure.
Article in CJC open, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- A Comparative Assessment of Large Language Models in Congenital Hypothyroidism: Reliability, Quality and ReadabilityJournal of clinical research in pediatric endocrinology · 2026Article
- Article
- Article
- Article
- Article
- A Systematic Quality Assessment of Online Resources on Eyelid Ptosis Using the Modified Ensuring Quality Information for Patients (mEQIP) Tool.Aesthetic plastic surgery · 2024Article
- Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Patient educational resources on heart failure (HF) medications may improve patient understanding, which is critical for informed decision-making and patient self-efficacy. The purpose of our study was to evaluate the quality and readability of written medication educational resources available online. Methods: Two investigators searched Google, Yahoo, and Bing for written patient educational resources that addressed at least one HF medication. We assessed educational quality using the Ensuring Quality Information for Patients (EQIP) tool (range 0 [worst] to 100 [best]), and we evaluated readability using the Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level. Results: From 693 identified webpages, 39 HF medication educational resources met study eligibility. Among included resources, the median Ensuring Quality Information for Patients score was 61% (interquartile range 54%-68%), with 2 (5%) rated as high quality (score ≥ 75%). The median Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level was 8 (interquartile range 8-12), with 4 (10%) resources meeting the recommended 6th-grade reading level. Conclusions: Most HF medication educational resources available on the Internet are of acceptable educational quality, but could readily be improved. Most resources were beyond the recommended reading grade level for educational resources, limiting their utility for patients with a low literacy level.
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.