Evidence mapPaperPMID 41859000Full record

ArticlePEC innovation2026

Development and evaluation of patient education material for splenectomy patients.

Masahiko Kita, Ryo Morita, Michinori Shirano

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PEC innovation, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Masahiko KitaGraduate School of Nursing, Osaka Metropolitan University, Japan.
Ryo MoritaDepartment of Infectious Diseases, Osaka City General Hospital, Osaka, Japan.
Michinori ShiranoDepartment of Infectious Diseases, Osaka City General Hospital, Osaka, Japan.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objective: To develop and evaluate the PEM designed to enhance splenectomy patients' understanding, self-efficacy, and adherence to infection prevention behaviors, addressing the limitations of existing resources. Methods: We developed the PEM with reference to the successive approximation model and evaluated the PEM after 2 joint reviews by infectious disease specialists. The evaluation method was conducted using an online survey. Native Japanese-speaking adults aged ≥18 years were recruited. We measured Results: The final study participants were 300. There were 140 female (46.7%), with more than 75% aged 50 or younger. Although Conclusion: We evaluated educational materials for patients undergoing splenectomy using an online survey. When developing PEMs, the ability to provide behavioral support should be considered, and a psychological approach that improves patients' subjective evaluation and fosters their sense of self-efficacy is essential.

Identifiers

PMID41859000
PMCPMC12996939

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.