ArticleJournal of arrhythmia2025
A critical analysis of online patient-directed resources on catheter ablation for ventricular arrhythmias.
Article in Journal of arrhythmia, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- A critical analysis of online patient-directed resources on catheter ablation for ventricular arrhythmias.Journal of arrhythmia · 2025Article
- Editorial to "A critical analysis of online patient-directed resources on catheter ablation for ventricular arrhythmias".Journal of arrhythmia · 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Patients search online content to improve their understanding of medical procedures. The quality of online patient education materials (OPEMs) on catheter ablation of ventricular arrhythmias (VAs) requires investigation. Methods: Six predetermined search terms relating to VA ablation were used to search Google, Bing and Yahoo for written OPEMs, and YouTube for video OPEMs. Written OPEMs were assessed for readability using five readability indices to produce a required reading grade level, and quality using the DISCERN and Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) instruments. Video OPEMs were assessed for quality according to compliance with a list of investigator-developed essential discussion points. Results: 1200 written and 480 videos were identified using the search strategy, of which 60 and 25 respectively were unique OPEMs included in this study. The mean reading grade level for written OPEMs was 11.3 ± 1.9, with no articles being written at the 6th grade level recommended by the American Medical Association. Using quality metrics, only 26.7% of written OPEMs attained a 'high-quality' JAMA rating, and 30% had a DISCERN score of 'good' or better. Video OPEMs similarly had poor quality, only discussing a mean of 3.50 ± 2.57 out of 18 total essential criteria. Conclusion: There is a paucity of online patient-directed materials on VA catheter ablation. Available OPEMs are of insufficient quality to adequately convey essential information, and written OPEMs are written at a level higher than the recommended reading level.
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.