ArticleJAMIA open2026
The effect of adding visual summaries to data visualizations on patient judgments of hypertension control.
Article in JAMIA open, 2026. 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
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Objectives: To test the impact of visual summaries of blood pressure (BP) data (eg, stoplight and gradient displays), within the context of a patient-facing digital application connected to the EHR, on patient judgments about hypertension control. Materials and Methods: Participants (N = 117; Internet sample of patients with hypertension) viewed graphs depicting BP data for fictitious patients. For each graph, participants rated perceived hypertension control, risk of heart attack and stroke, urgency, worry, and perceived understanding of health implications on a 0-100 slider bar and indicated the preferred action to take in response this BP data (eg, talk to doctor at next appointment, go to hospital immediately). Using a within-subjects design, all participants evaluated 12 graphs with data that varied in systolic BP mean (controlled or uncontrolled) and standard deviation (moderate or high) and included three different types of visual summaries: (1) control (average BP only), (2) stoplight, (3) gradient. Participants also completed the Graph Literacy-Short Form and the Electronic Health Literacy Scales (eHEALS). Results: Measures of perceived risk of heart attack and stroke, urgency, and worry were significantly greater and perceived hypertension control was significantly lower for cases where hypertension was uncontrolled Discussion and Conclusion: The verbal summary, stoplight, and gradient displays performed similarly despite the addition of more precise risk information.
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.