Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30032961›Full record

ReviewInternational journal of medical informatics2018

The design of decisions: Matching clinical decision support recommendations to Nielsen's design heuristics.

Kristen Miller, Muge Capan, Danielle Weldon, Yaman Noaiseh, Rebecca Kowalski, Rachel Kraft, Sanford Schwartz, William S Weintraub, Ryan Arnold

Abstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in International journal of medical informatics, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

20 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. A systematic review of theoretical constructs in CDS literature.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2021
    Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Observational
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
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

9 authors.

Kristen MillerNational Center for Human Factors in Healthcare, MedStar Health, Washington, DC, USA. Electronic address: Kristen.E.Miller@medstar.net.
Muge CapanDecision Sciences & MIS Department, LeBow College of Business, Drexel University, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
Danielle WeldonNational Center for Human Factors in Healthcare, MedStar Health, Washington, DC, USA.
Yaman NoaisehCollege of Computing and Informatics, Drexel University, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
Rebecca KowalskiNational Center for Human Factors in Healthcare, MedStar Health, Washington, DC, USA.
Rachel KraftCollege of Engineering, University of Delaware, Newark, DE, USA.
Sanford SchwartzHealth Care Management, University of Pennsylvania, Wharton, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
William S WeintraubMedStar Washington Hospital Center, MedStar Health, Washington, DC, USA.
Ryan ArnoldDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Drexel University School of Medicine, Philadelphia, PA, USA.

Funding

Subproject Title: Clinical Research Education, Mentoring and Career Development CoreU54GM104941 · NIGMS · UNIVERSITY OF DELAWARE · PI Megan M Wenner · 2013 to 2026
$60.5M
Signaling Sepsis: Developing a framework to optimize alert designR01LM012300 · NLM · MEDSTAR HEALTH RESEARCH INSTITUTE · PI MILLER, KRISTEN ELIZABETH · 2016 to 2020
$1.4M
NIGMS NIH HHS U54 GM104941NLM NIH HHS R01 LM012300
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveWhile general design heuristics exist for graphic user interfaces, it remains a challenge to facilitate the implementation of these heuristics for the design of clinical decision support. Our goals were to map a set of recommendations for clinical decision support design found in current literature to Jakob Nielsen's traditional usability heuristics and to suggest usability areas that need more investigation. MATERIALS AND

methodsUsing a modified nominal group process, the research team discussed, classified, and mapped recommendations, organized as interface, information, and interaction, to design heuristics. A previous narrative review identified 42 recommendations from the literature to define the design and functional characteristics that impact the performance of CDS in terms of provider preference, process of care, and patient outcomes. MAIN

findingsWe matched 20 out of 42 recommendations to heuristics. The mapping reveals gaps in both heuristics and recommendations, identifying a set of Nielsen's heuristics that are underrepresented in the literature and subsets of recommendations important to design not covered in Nielsen's heuristics. We attributed this, in part, to the evolution of technology since the inception of Nielsen's heuristics. The team created a new interaction heuristic: Integration into real-time workflow to consider the needs of the end-user in the clinical space. DISCUSSION: Clinical decision support has enabled clinicians to better address arising information needs; however there remains a lack of evidence-based guidelines in terms of functional and design requirements.

conclusionResults from this review suggest that interaction design principles were not fully satisfied by the current literature of clinical decision support.

Indexed as

Decision MakingDecision Support Systems, ClinicalHeuristicsHumansResearchUser-Computer InterfaceClinical decision supportDesignHeuristicsInteractionInterface

Identifiers

PMID30032961
PMCPMC6061965

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.