Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39104856›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in medicine2024

Listen to your heart: a critical analysis of popular cardiology podcasts.

Harish Kamalanathan, Lewis Hains, Stephen Bacchi, Wrivu N Martin, Ammar Zaka, Flynn Slattery, Joshua G Kovoor, Aashray K Gupta, Peter Psaltis, Pramesh Kovoor

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors.

Harish KamalanathanDepartment of Cardiology, Gold Coast University Hospital, Southport, QLD, Australia.
Lewis HainsDepartment of Research, School of Medicine, University of Adelaide, Adelaide, SA, Australia.
Stephen BacchiCollege of Medicine and Public Health, Flinders University, Adelaide, SA, Australia.
Wrivu N MartinCollege of Health, Medicine and Wellbeing, The University of Newcastle, Callaghan, NSW, Australia.
Ammar ZakaDepartment of Cardiology, Gold Coast University Hospital, Southport, QLD, Australia.
Flynn SlatteryDepartment of Research, Royal Adelaide Hospital, Adelaide, SA, Australia.
Joshua G KovoorDepartment of Research, School of Medicine, University of Adelaide, Adelaide, SA, Australia.
Aashray K GuptaDepartment of Cardiology, Gold Coast University Hospital, Southport, QLD, Australia.
Peter PsaltisDepartment of Research, School of Medicine, University of Adelaide, Adelaide, SA, Australia.
Pramesh KovoorDepartment of Cardiology, Westmead Hospital, Westmead, NSW, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Purpose: Podcasts are an increasingly popular medium for medical education in the field of cardiology. However, evidence suggests that the quality of the information presented can be variable. The aim of our study was to assess the quality of the most popular cardiology podcasts on existing podcast streaming services, using tools designed to grade online medical education. Results: We analyzed the five most recent episodes from 28 different popular cardiology podcasts as of 20th of September, 2022 using the validated rMETRIQ and JAMA scoring tools. The median podcast length was 20 min and most episodes were hosted by professors, subspecialty discussants or consultant physicians (87.14%). Although most episodes had only essential content (85%), only a small proportion of episodes provided detailed references (12.9%), explicitly identified conflicts of interest (30.7%), described a review process (13.6%), or provided a robust discussion of the podcast's content (13.6%). We observed no consistent relationship between episode length, seniority of host or seniority of guest speaker with rMETRIQ or JAMA scores. Conclusions: Cardiology podcasts are a valuable remote learning tool for clinicians. However, the reliability, relevance, and transparency of information provided on cardiology podcasts varies widely. Streamlined standards for evaluation are needed to improve podcast quality.

Indexed as

cardiologycardiology learningcardiology podcastsmedical educationmedical education podcasts

Identifiers

PMID39104856
PMCPMC11299239

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.