ArticleEuropean heart journal. Imaging methods and practice2025
Readability of patient education materials on cardiac magnetic resonance imaging.
Article in European heart journal. Imaging methods and practice, 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.
- Artificial Intelligence-enhanced cardiac MRI reporting: expert validation and patient-centered outcomes.The international journal of cardiovascular imaging · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Aims: We assessed the readability level of online patient education materials (PEMs) for cardiac MRI (CMRI) to determine whether they meet the standard health literacy needs as determined by the US National Institutes of Health and the American Medical Association guidelines. Methods and results: We evaluated the readability of CMRI PEMs from 5 websites using the Flesch-Kincaid Reading Ease (FKRE), Flesch-Kincaid grade level (FKGL), Gunning-Fog Index (GFI), Simple Measure of Gobbledygook index (SMOGI), Coleman-Liau Index (CLI), and Automated Readability Index (ARI). PEMs on the British Heart Foundation (BHF) website yielded the highest mean FKRE score, while the RadiologyInfo.org (RadInfo) website yielded the highest mean score on the CLI compared to all the other websites. Statistical analysis of individual predictors revealed that average words per sentence ( Conclusion: The BHF and American Heart Association emphasize accessible CMRI communication, whereas RadInfo, InsRad, and the European Society of Cardiology PEMs may be less suitable for low-health-literacy audiences. Strategies aimed at enhancing the comprehensibility of patient education materials should primarily focus on reducing the average complexity of words and shortening average sentence lengths.
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.