ArticleRevista latino-americana de enfermagem2016
Assessment of the usability of a digital learning technology prototype for monitoring intracranial pressure.
Article in Revista latino-americana de enfermagem, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Expert participation in the health technology assessment process: a scoping review.Revista brasileira de enfermagem · 2026Article
- Software for the care of people with cardiovascular risk: construction and evidence of validity.Revista brasileira de enfermagem · 2024Article
- Validation of an interactive electronic book for cardiovascular risk reduction in people living with HIV.Revista latino-americana de enfermagem · 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveto assess the usability of a digital learning technology prototype as a new method for minimally invasive monitoring of intracranial pressure.
methoddescriptive study using a quantitative approach on assessing the usability of a prototype based on Nielsen's ten heuristics. Four experts in the area of Human-Computer interaction participated in the study.
resultsthe evaluation delivered eight violated heuristics and 31 usability problems in the 32 screens of the prototype.
conclusionthe suggestions of the evaluators were critical for developing an intuitive, user-friendly interface and will be included in the final version of the digital learning technology. OBJETIVO: avaliar a usabilidade de um protótipo educacional digital sobre um novo método para monitoração da pressão intracraniana de forma minimamente invasivo para enfermeiros e médicos. MÉTODO: estudo descritivo com abordagem quantitativa sobre a avaliação de usabilidade de um protótipo com base nas dez Heurísticas de Nielsen. Participaram quatro especialistas da área de Interação Humano Computador. RESULTADOS: a avaliação resultou em oito heurísticas violadas e 31 problemas de usabilidade nas 32 telas do protótipo. CONCLUSÃO: as sugestões dos avaliadores foram cruciais para o desenvolvimento de uma interface amigável e intuitiva e serão consideradas na versão final da tecnologia educacional digital. OBJETIVO: evaluar la usabilidad de un prototipo educacional digital sobre un nuevo método para monitorización de la presión intracraneal, de manera mínimamente invasiva. MÉTODO: estudio descriptivo con abordaje cuantitativo sobre la evaluación de usabilidad de un prototipo con base en las diez reglas Heurísticas de Nielsen. Participaron cuatro especialistas del área de Interacción Humana Computador. RESULTADOS: la evaluación resultó en ocho reglas heurísticas violadas y 31 problemas de usabilidad en las 32 pantallas del prototipo. CONCLUSIÓN: las sugestiones de los evaluadores fueron cruciales para el desarrollo de una interfaz amigable e intuitiva y éstas serán consideradas en la versión final de la tecnología educacional digital.
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.