ArticlePloS one2017
Improved usability of a multi-infusion setup using a centralized control interface: A task-based usability test.
Article in PloS one, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 23 citations in OpenAlex.
- Nurses' Involvement in the Development and Usability Assessment of an Innovative Peripheral Intravenous Catheterisation Pack: A Mix-Method Study.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Trial
- Centralized Pump Monitoring System: Perception on Utility and Workflows by Nurses in a Tertiary Hospital.Asian/Pacific Island nursing journal · 2024Article
- Multi-infusion with integrated multiple pressure sensing allows earlier detection of line occlusions.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2021Article
- Towards more efficient use of intravenous lumens in multi-infusion settings: development and evaluation of a multiplex infusion scheduling algorithm.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2020Article
- Critical care information display approaches and design frameworks: A systematic review and meta-analysis.Journal of biomedical informatics: X · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The objective of this study was to assess the usability benefits of adding a bedside central control interface that controls all intravenous (IV) infusion pumps compared to the conventional individual control of multiple infusion pumps. Eighteen dedicated ICU nurses volunteered in a between-subjects task-based usability test. A newly developed central control interface was compared to conventional control of multiple infusion pumps in a simulated ICU setting. Task execution time, clicks, errors and questionnaire responses were evaluated. Overall the central control interface outperformed the conventional control in terms of fewer user actions (40±3 vs. 73±20 clicks, p<0.001) and fewer user errors (1±1 vs. 3±2 errors, p<0.05), with no difference in task execution times (421±108 vs. 406±119 seconds, not significant). Questionnaires indicated a significant preference for the central control interface. Despite being novice users of the central control interface, ICU nurses displayed improved performance with the central control interface compared to the conventional interface they were familiar with. We conclude that the new user interface has an overall better usability than the conventional interface.
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.