ArticleMedical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research2019
A Usability Study of 3 Radiotherapy Systems: A Comparative Evaluation Based on Expert Evaluation and User Experience.
Article in Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Leveraging large language models for heuristic usability assessment of medical software: Insights with the Radiation Planning Assistant.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2026Article
- User Experience Evaluation of a Spinal Surgery Robot: Workload, Usability, and Satisfaction Study.JMIR human factors · 2024Article
- 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
- 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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND The complex user interface design of radiotherapy treatment delivery systems can lead to use error and patient harm. In this study, we present the results of a comparison of 3 radiotherapy treatment delivery systems now used in China. MATERIAL AND METHODS We conducted a comprehensive usability study of 3 radiotherapy treatment delivery systems. Expert evaluation was performed through heuristic evaluation with 3 human-factors experts and 1 experienced radiation therapist for each system. User experience was assessed through perceived system usability and workload, using the National Aeronautics and Space Administration Task Load Index and the Post-Study System Usability Questionnaire. RESULTS For the expert evaluation, 47 usability problems were identified for Varian Trilogy, 75 for Elekta Precise, and 37 for Shinva XHA600E. Most problems were classified as major and minor usability problems, and were found in the process of patient setup and setup verification. For the user experience, radiation therapists presented a lower workload for Varian Trilogy compared to Elekta Precise (P<0.01) and Shinva XHA600E (P<0.01), and a lower workload for Elekta Precise compared to Shinva XHA600E (P=0.020). Radiation therapists perceived a higher system usability for Varian Trilogy compared to Shinva XHA600E (P<0.01), and a higher system usability for Elekta Precise compared to Shinva XHA600E (P<0.01). CONCLUSIONS This research provides valuable data on how 3 radiotherapy treatment delivery systems compare. The results of this study may be useful for hospital equipment procurement decisions, and designing next-generation products to improve patient safety.
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.