ArticlePloS one2019
Identification of clinically related requirements of a novel assistive device for people with a high spinal cord injury.
Article in PloS one, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 5 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
People with spinal cord injuries (SCI), and particularly with high level lesions, can potentially lose the ability to effectively operate computers. The Multimedia Authoring and Management using your Eyes and Mind (MAMEM) project aims to design and produce a novel assistive device to support computer use by individuals with SCI and other disabilities. The solution harnesses eye tracking and brain waves, as measured by encephalography (EEG), to manipulate common computer functions. This paper describes the first step in the project, during which we defined clinically related requirements of the assistive device. These definitions were based on data from three sources: (1) a narrative review; (2) a focus group of SCI rehabilitation professionals; and (3) structured questionnaires administrated to potential computer users with SCI, addressing computer-use habits, barriers, and needs. We describe both the collection of data from each source and the clinically related requirements extracted. The novel three-source requirement assessment method is discussed, and the advantages and disadvantages of each data source are reported. In conclusion, we suggest that this approach makes it possible to organize, discuss, and prioritize the requirements, and to create a work program while planning the device. This increases our level of certainty that the efficacy and adequacy of the assistive device will be maximized, in terms of the clinical needs of users.
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.