ArticleSensors (Basel, Switzerland)2019
Evaluating a Spoken Dialogue System for Recording Systems of Nursing Care.
Article in Sensors (Basel, Switzerland), 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Improving Clinical Documentation with Artificial Intelligence: A Systematic Review.Perspectives in health information management · 2024Pooled it
- Clinical Barriers to Hands-Free, Eyes-Free Voice Input for Nursing Records: Field Usability Study.Asian/Pacific Island nursing journal · 2026Article
- Time Savings Through an AI Speech Assistant for Nursing Documentation: Pre-Post Time-Motion Study in German Long-Term Care.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Article
- Large language models in healthcare quality management: a European perspective on process automation and compliance.Frontiers in digital health · 2026Review
- Conversational Artificial Intelligence for Spinal Pain Questionnaire: Validation and User Satisfaction.Neurospine · 2022Article
- Automatic Labeled Dialogue Generation for Nursing Record Systems.Journal of personalized medicine · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Integrating speech recondition technology into an electronic health record (EHR) has been studied in recent years. However, the full adoption of the system still faces challenges such as handling speech errors, transforming raw data into an understandable format and controlling the transition from one field to the next field with speech commands. To reduce errors, cost, and documentation time, we propose a dialogue system care record (DSCR) based on a smartphone for nursing documentation. We describe the effects of DSCR on (1) documentation speed, (2) document accuracy and (3) user satisfaction. We tested the application with 12 participants to examine the usability and feasibility of DSCR. The evaluation shows that DSCR can collect data efficiently by achieving 96% of documentation accuracy. Average documentation speed was increased by 15% (P = 0.012) compared to traditional electronic forms (e-forms). The participants' average satisfaction rating was 4.8 using DSCR compared to 3.6 using e-forms on a scale of 1-5 (P = 0.032).
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.