BACKGROUND: Abbreviation use in clinical and academic cardiology is widespread, yet there are few guidelines regulating the creation and utilization of abbreviations. Inconsistent abbreviations can introduce ambiguity and pose challenges to practice and research.
OBJECTIVES: The authors aimed to analyze how abbreviations are created and utilized in general cardiology and cardiac imaging society guidelines in order to assess whether ambiguities and discrepancies exist between societies.
METHODS: Abbreviation data were collected from 7 national and international societies of general cardiology and cardiac imaging over a 6-year span (2018-2023). Data were linguistically coded for abbreviation type, unique occurrence, meaning or sense count, and frequency of discrepancy between societies.
RESULTS: Among a total of 5,394 abbreviation tokens, there were 1,782 unique entries. Among the unique entries, 227 (12.7%) had 2 or more associated meanings (senses), and thus were potentially ambiguous. Cardiac societies differed from each other, and also internally, in their use of abbreviations, with the European Society of Cardiology representing the highest frequency of discrepant abbreviation usage (14.5%).
CONCLUSIONS: More than 12.7% of abbreviations in cardiology society guidelines had 2 or more corresponding meanings, potentially increasing the risks of miscommunication and misrepresentation. We call on cardiology and cardiac imaging societies to define and publish best practices regarding abbreviation creation and utilization.