SynthesisGlobal heart2025
Quality of Available Cardiovascular Disease Knowledge Tools: A Systematic Review.
Synthesis in Global heart, 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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Cardiovascular disease (CVD) is the leading cause of morbidity and mortality. Most people can reduce their CVD risk through lifestyle improvements and medication. Having low health literacy is a barrier to CVD prevention and management and is associated with worse health outcomes. Knowledge is a key component of health literacy, but there is no standard way for clinicians to assess this to tailor education about CVD. The aim of this review was to identify available CVD knowledge tests and evaluate their quality. Methods: Electronic database searches were conducted using Medline, CINAHL, PsycINFO and PsycTESTS between inception and October 2022. Identified tools were assessed using the Psychometric Grading Framework (PGF) to assess the quality of included tests. Results: A total of 28 studies were identified, of which 18 were original test development papers and 10 were language translation papers. The five most common domains were CVD risk factors, nutrition, heart physiology, physical activity, and treatment options. Three papers achieved an A grading on the PGF. Only one test provided a guide to classify patients based on the results. Conclusions: This review identified 15 additional knowledge assessment tools compared to previous research, including some available in multiple languages. Clinicians can access a wide range of CVD knowledge assessment tools to understand and respond to patient knowledge levels, but some are higher quality than others. Alternative tools may be needed to assess specific risk factor and condition knowledge. Further work is needed to tailor CVD knowledge tests for populations lower health literacy, and to validate the tests against health outcomes to improve clinical practice. PROSPERO: CRD42022370227. What is Known: Having low health literacy is associated with worse cardiovascular outcomes.Knowledge is a key component of health literacy, but there is no standard way to assess this for CVD.An assessment of the quality and reliability of CVD knowledge tests could support clinicians to tailor patient education to health literacy needs. What the Study Adds: We identified 15 additional tests development papers that were not captured in earlier reviews of CVD knowledge tests.There are multiple high quality CVD knowledge tests available to clinicians, and tests available in different languages.These tests may be used to tailor patient education to individual health literacy needs.
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.