ArticleMedical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research2018
Comprehensive Evaluation of User Interface for Ventilators Based on Respiratory Therapists' Performance, Workload, and User Experience.
Article in Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research, 2018. 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.
- Reducing False Alarm Rates and Workload in ICUs by Improving Arrhythmia Detection Algorithms of Patient Monitoring Systems.Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research · 2025Article
- Usability Study on Patient Monitoring Systems: An Evaluation of a User Interface Based on User Experience and Preference.Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research · 2023Article
- Human factors/ergonomics to support the design and testing of rapidly manufactured ventilators in the UK during the COVID-19 pandemic.International journal for quality in health care : journal of the International Society for Quality in Health Care · 2021Article
- The usability of ventilator maintenance user interface: A comparative evaluation of user task performance, workload, and user experience.Science progressArticle
- Usability testing of radiotherapy systems as a medical device evaluation tool to inform hospital procurement decision-making.Science progressArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND Poor ergonomic design of ventilators can result in human errors. In this study, we evaluated the ergonomics of ventilators through respiratory therapists' performance, workload, and user experience. MATERIAL AND METHODS Sixteen respiratory therapists were recruited to this usability study of 3 ventilators. Participants had to perform 7 tasks on each ventilator. Respiratory therapists' performance was measured by task errors of all tasks for each participant. Workload was measured by objective measurement (blink rate and duration) and by subjective measurement (NASA-TLX). User experience was assessed by the USE Questionnaire. RESULTS For task errors, significant differences were found among ventilators (p<0.05) and the Evital 4 received higher task errors when compared to the Servo I (p<0.05). For blink rate, significant differences were found in tasks of starting the ventilator, ventilator monitoring values recognition, ventilator setting parameters modification, alarm parameter recognition, and resetting among ventilators (p<0.05). Furthermore, blink duration was also found to be significant differently in tasks of starting the ventilator, mode and setting parameters recognition, ventilator monitoring values recognition, ventilator mode modification, and alarm parameter recognition and resetting, as well as in the average of all tasks (p<0.05). For perceived workload, the Evital 4 received higher NASA-TLX scores among ventilators. For user experience, the Servo I received the highest scores on the USE Questionnaire among the ventilators. CONCLUSIONS The study provides a comprehensive evaluation method of user interface based on respiratory therapists' performance, workload, and user experience. In addition, this study suggests that the ergonomic design of the Evital 4 is poor. Finally, we found that eye motion (blink rate and duration) may be useful to assess the ergonomics of a user 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.