Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29340235›Full record

ArticlePeerJ2018

Evidence-based design and evaluation of a whole genome sequencing clinical report for the reference microbiology laboratory.

Anamaria Crisan, Geoffrey McKee, Tamara Munzner, Jennifer L Gardy

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PeerJ, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 31 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
31citing papers in PubMed
3.8field-weighted citation impact, top 6% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

31 citing papers in PubMed, 56 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Designing visual hierarchies for the communication of health data.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2024
    Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Utility of hybrid whole genome sequencing in assessing potential nosocomial VIM transmission.Antimicrobial stewardship & healthcare epidemiology : ASHE · 2024
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Application of Pathogen Genomics to Outbreak Investigation.Methods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.) · 2024
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Clinical Pathogen Genomics.Clinics in laboratory medicine · 2020
    Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Anamaria CrisanDepartment of Computer Science, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.
Geoffrey McKeeSchool of Population and Public Health, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.
Tamara MunznerDepartment of Computer Science, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.
Jennifer L GardySchool of Population and Public Health, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.
University of British Columbia · CA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMicrobial genome sequencing is now being routinely used in many clinical and public health laboratories. Understanding how to report complex genomic test results to stakeholders who may have varying familiarity with genomics-including clinicians, laboratorians, epidemiologists, and researchers-is critical to the successful and sustainable implementation of this new technology; however, there are no evidence-based guidelines for designing such a report in the pathogen genomics domain. Here, we describe an iterative, human-centered approach to creating a report template for communicating tuberculosis (TB) genomic test results.

methodsWe used Design Study Methodology-a human centered approach drawn from the information visualization domain-to redesign an existing clinical report. We used expert consults and an online questionnaire to discover various stakeholders' needs around the types of data and tasks related to TB that they encounter in their daily workflow. We also evaluated their perceptions of and familiarity with genomic data, as well as its utility at various clinical decision points. These data shaped the design of multiple prototype reports that were compared against the existing report through a second online survey, with the resulting qualitative and quantitative data informing the final, redesigned, report.

resultsWe recruited 78 participants, 65 of whom were clinicians, nurses, laboratorians, researchers, and epidemiologists involved in TB diagnosis, treatment, and/or surveillance. Our first survey indicated that participants were largely enthusiastic about genomic data, with the majority agreeing on its utility for certain TB diagnosis and treatment tasks and many reporting some confidence in their ability to interpret this type of data (between 58.8% and 94.1%, depending on the specific data type). When we compared our four prototype reports against the existing design, we found that for the majority (86.7%) of design comparisons, participants preferred the alternative prototype designs over the existing version, and that both clinicians and non-clinicians expressed similar design preferences. Participants showed clearer design preferences when asked to compare individual design elements versus entire reports. Both the quantitative and qualitative data informed the design of a revised report, available online as a LaTeX template.

conclusionsWe show how a human-centered design approach integrating quantitative and qualitative feedback can be used to design an alternative report for representing complex microbial genomic data. We suggest experimental and design guidelines to inform future design studies in the bioinformatics and microbial genomics domains, and suggest that this type of mixed-methods study is important to facilitate the successful translation of pathogen genomics in the clinic, not only for clinical reports but also more complex bioinformatics data visualization software.

Indexed as

GenomeHuman-centered designNext generation sequencingReportTuberculosis

Identifiers

PMID29340235
PMCPMC5767084
OpenAlexW2767405109

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.