ArticleCJC open2025
Evaluating the Readability and Understandability of Online Patient Educational Material for Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in Canada.
Article in CJC open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Background: Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is the most common treatment for coronary artery disease revascularization. Many patients undergoing PCI may seek educational information online, but the reliability of such resources remains uncertain. This study seeks to assess the readability and understandability of online patient resources for PCI from Canadian hospital sources. Methods: We performed a descriptive study evaluating online educational materials pertaining to PCI hosted by all Canadian hospitals that perform the procedure. The primary outcomes were readability, assessed using the Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level (FKGL) and Scolarius score, and understandability plus actionability, as assessed using the Patient Education Materials Assessment Tool (PEMAT). Educational clinical material is recommended to be written at an FKGL between 6 and 8. A score between 50 and 89 on the Scolarius tool suggests the text is readable by most adults, and a PEMAT score >70% corresponds to an understandable and actionable educational material. Results: A total of 29 Canadian hospitals performing PCI and hosting unique educational content were identified. Only 71% of PCI-capable hospitals provide relevant online educational resources to patients. The average FKGL of the analyzed content was 10 (range 5-18) and the average Scolarius score was 127.8 (range 79-173). The average total PEMAT print score was 46.1%, whereas the average total PEMAT audiovisual score was 71.8%. Conclusions: Most of the educational material pertaining to PCI created by Canadian hospitals is in English and print format, and of poor readability, understandability, and actionability. Audiovisual materials perform better but are sparsely used.
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.