ArticleJACC. Advances2025
Analyzing the Creation and Use of Abbreviations in Cardiology and Cardiac Imaging Society Guidelines.
Article in JACC. Advances, 2025. 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.
- Development and Clinical Evaluation of a Large Language Model-Based System for Generating Patient-Friendly Echocardiography Reports: Two-Stage Retrospective Validation and Prospective Survey Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
15 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Abbreviation use in clinical and academic cardiology is widespread, yet there are few guidelines regulating the creation and utilization of abbreviations. Inconsistent abbreviations can introduce ambiguity and pose challenges to practice and research. Objectives: The authors aimed to analyze how abbreviations are created and utilized in general cardiology and cardiac imaging society guidelines in order to assess whether ambiguities and discrepancies exist between societies. Methods: Abbreviation data were collected from 7 national and international societies of general cardiology and cardiac imaging over a 6-year span (2018-2023). Data were linguistically coded for abbreviation type, unique occurrence, meaning or sense count, and frequency of discrepancy between societies. Results: Among a total of 5,394 abbreviation tokens, there were 1,782 unique entries. Among the unique entries, 227 (12.7%) had 2 or more associated meanings (senses), and thus were potentially ambiguous. Cardiac societies differed from each other, and also internally, in their use of abbreviations, with the European Society of Cardiology representing the highest frequency of discrepant abbreviation usage (14.5%). Conclusions: More than 12.7% of abbreviations in cardiology society guidelines had 2 or more corresponding meanings, potentially increasing the risks of miscommunication and misrepresentation. We call on cardiology and cardiac imaging societies to define and publish best practices regarding abbreviation creation and utilization.
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.