ArticleAMIA ... Annual Symposium proceedings. AMIA Symposium2016
Evaluating a Novel Summary Visualization for Clinical Trial Reports: A Usability Study.
Article in AMIA ... Annual Symposium proceedings. AMIA Symposium, 2016. 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.
- Interactive Visual Displays for Interpreting the Results of Clinical Trials: Formative Evaluation With Case Vignettes.Journal of medical Internet research · 2018Article
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
Contributions of clinical trials are captured in published reports that are unstructured and often require extensive manual review to gain a deeper understanding of the study itself. Our goal is to increase comprehension and decrease the time necessary to understand these reports through the use of visualization tools. In this paper, we specify and evaluate the visualization of a previously developed representation as well as gain insight from user input for further development. The usability experiment consisted of a two-arm study with users either having or not having access to the visualization. A user questionnaire was used to measure time spent and accuracy in comprehension; intuitiveness and reproducibility of the visualization; and preferences. We found that having the visualization required on average 28.1% less time (25.8 min vs. 35.8 min, p=0.01) while maintaining similar accuracy (73.7% vs. 67.0%). Users were then asked to create their own visualizations, with their visualizations averaging 86.1% similar to the gold standard. All participants either preferred the visualization over the status quo or preferred both equally. These results demonstrate that novel visualizations for trial reports could provide time savings and achieve similar accuracy as reviewing the paper itself. Understanding the strength and quality of clinical trials can be alleviated with a visualization that makes content explicit.
Indexed as
Identifiers
28269960PMC5333215What 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.