ArticleBMJ open2014
A usability study of two formats of a shortened systematic review for clinicians.
Article in BMJ open, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT02414360 (Using a Systematic Review in Clinical Decision Making), which is not on this map. Cited by 11 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
Using a Systematic Review in Clinical Decision Making: a Pilot Parallel, Randomized Controlled Trial
Who cites it
11 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- The effectiveness and acceptability of evidence synthesis summary formats for clinical guideline development groups: a mixed-methods systematic review.Implementation science : IS · 2022Pooled it
- Using a systematic review in clinical decision making: a pilot parallel, randomized controlled trial.Implementation science : IS · 2015Trial
- Article
- Assessing how information is packaged in rapid reviews for policy-makers and other stakeholders: a cross-sectional study.Health research policy and systems · 2020Article
- Assessing the format and content of journal published and non-journal published rapid review reports: A comparative study.PloS one · 2020Article
- Development of consumer information leaflets for deprescribing in older hospital inpatients: a mixed-methods study.BMJ open · 2019Article
- Visual Evidence: Increasing Usability of Systematic Reviews in Health Systems Guidelines Development.Applied clinical informatics · 2019Article
- Interactive Visual Displays for Interpreting the Results of Clinical Trials: Formative Evaluation With Case Vignettes.Journal of medical Internet research · 2018Article
- Enhancing the uptake of systematic reviews of effects: what is the best format for health care managers and policy-makers? A mixed-methods study.Implementation science : IS · 2018Review
- Barriers and facilitators to uptake of systematic reviews by policy makers and health care managers: a scoping review.Implementation science : IS · 2016Article
- Redesigning printed educational materials for primary care physicians: design improvements increase usability.Implementation science : IS · 2015Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveThe aim of this study was to evaluate the usability of two formats of a shortened systematic review for clinicians. MATERIALS AND
methodsUsability of the prototypes was assessed using three cycles of iterative testing. 10 participants were asked to complete tasks of locating information or items within two prototypes and 'think aloud' while being audio taped. Interviews were also audio recorded and participants completed a systematic usability scale.
resultsRevisions were made between each iteration in order to address issues identified by participants. Finding information relating to the number of studies in the meta-analysis, and locating the number of studies in the entire systematic review were revealed as areas needing attention during the usability evaluation.
conclusionsIterative testing combined with a multifaceted approach to usability testing offered essential insight into aspects of the prototypes that required modifications. Alterations were made in order to create finalised versions of the two shortened systematic review formats.
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.