ArticlePEC innovation2022
Evidence-based health information about pulmonary embolism: Assessing the quality, usability and readability of online and offline patient information.
Article in PEC innovation, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Navigating chest pain online: who uses health information and what actions follow?BMC primary care · 2025Article
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: Pulmonary embolism (PE) is the third most common cardiovascular disease worldwide. However, public awareness is considerably lower than for myocardial infarction or stroke. Patients suffering from PE complain about the lack of (understandable) information and express high informational needs. To uncover if reliable information is indeed scarce, this study evaluates the quantity and quality of existing patient information for tertiary prevention using an evidence-based health information paradigm. Methods: We conducted a quantitative content analysis ( Results: Results show that there is not enough patient information material focusing on PE as a main topic. Existing patient information material is mostly incomplete, difficult to understand, and low in actionability as well as readability. Conclusion: Our systematic analysis reveals the need for more high-quality patient information on PE as part of effective tertiary prevention. Innovation: This is the first review analyzing content, methodical quality, readability, and usability of patient information on PE. The findings of this analysis are guiding the development of an innovative, evidence-based patient information on PE aiming to support patients' informational needs and their self-care behavior.
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.