ReviewCJC open2025
Patient- and Family-Centered Care Recommendations in Cardiology Guidelines: An AI-Driven Systematic Review.
Review 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: Patient- and family-centred care (PFCC) is recognized as a critical component of cardiovascular care, but its integration into cardiology society guidelines has not been described. The objective of this study is to review PFCC language use and recommendations within major cardiology society guidelines. Methods: We conducted a systematic review of guidelines and statements from the American College of Cardiology (ACC), the American Heart Association (AHA), the Canadian Cardiovascular Society (CCS), and the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) for the period 2013-2023. PFCC-related key terms were identified using an artificial intelligence-based natural language processing algorithm, and recommendations were categorized into 8 dimensions of PFCC. The inclusion of PFCC recommendations across societies and trends over time were examined. Results: A total of 260 guidelines and statements were analyzed. The most frequent PFCC dimensions overall were Health Transitions (23.5 per 100 pages), Shared Decision-Making (11.1 per 100 pages), and Care Access (9.9 per 100 pages). The least commonly identified dimensions across all journals were Care Coordination (6.5 per 100 pages), Emotional Support (4.0 per 100 pages), and Familial Support (1.0 per 100 pages). The CCS, ACC, and AHA had more recommendations using PFCC key terms than the ESC per 100 pages (17.3, 12.0, 10.3 vs 4.6, respectively, Conclusions: PFCC language and recommendations are being included increasingly in cardiology society guidelines. Differences exist in PFCC language use across these societies. Future research is needed to evaluate the impact of these guideline recommendations on clinical practice.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.