ArticleAMIA Joint Summits on Translational Science proceedings. AMIA Joint Summits on Translational Science2014
Cross-system evaluation of clinical trial search engines.
Article in AMIA Joint Summits on Translational Science proceedings. AMIA Joint Summits on Translational Science, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Accelerating Cancer Patient Recruitment Through a Mobile Application (Clinical Trial Finder).Cancer informatics · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Clinical trials are fundamental to the advancement of medicine but constantly face recruitment difficulties. Various clinical trial search engines have been designed to help health consumers identify trials for which they may be eligible. Unfortunately, knowledge of the usefulness and usability of their designs remains scarce. In this study, we used mixed methods, including time-motion analysis, think-aloud protocol, and survey, to evaluate five popular clinical trial search engines with 11 users. Differences in user preferences and time spent on each system were observed and correlated with user characteristics. In general, searching for applicable trials using these systems is a cognitively demanding task. Our results show that user perceptions of these systems are multifactorial. The survey indicated eTACTS being the generally preferred system, but this finding did not persist among all mixed methods. This study confirms the value of mixed-methods for a comprehensive system evaluation. Future system designers must be aware that different users groups expect different functionalities.
Identifiers
25954590PMC4419768What 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.