ReviewJMIR human factors2020
Novel Interface Designs for Patient Monitoring Applications in Critical Care Medicine: Human Factors Review.
Review in JMIR human factors, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 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
14 citing papers in PubMed, 23 citations in OpenAlex.
- Observational
- Digital Gaze and Vicarious Trauma Among Intensive Care Unit Nurses in Alarm-Monitoring Ecologies: Qualitative Interview Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Article
- Effectiveness Assessment of a Multi-Functional Neonatal Incubator in the NICU.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Usability Evaluation of a Central Monitoring System with AI-Based Cardiac Arrest Prediction in the ICU.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Nano-Enabled Microfluidic Platforms for Functional Immunomonitoring in Pediatric Sepsis.International journal of nanomedicine · 2026Review
- Visual Perception and Pre-Attentive Attributes in Oncological Data Visualisation.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Enhancing the Usability of Patient Monitoring Devices in Intensive Care Units: Usability Engineering Processes for Early Warning System (EWS) Evaluation and Design.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- The Sustained Attention Paradox: A Critical Commentary on the Theoretical Impossibility of Perfect Vigilance.Cognitive science · 2025Article
- User Experience Study of the Patient Monitoring Systems Based on Usability Testing and Eye Tracking.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 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
- Anesthesia personnel's visual attention regarding patient monitoring in simulated non-critical and critical situations, an eye-tracking study.BMC anesthesiology · 2022Article
- A Remote Patient-Monitoring System for Intensive Care Medicine: Mixed Methods Human-Centered Design and Usability Evaluation.JMIR human factors · 2022Article
- Augmenting Critical Care Patient Monitoring Using Wearable Technology: Review of Usability and Human Factors.JMIR human factors · 2021Review
- Differing Visual Behavior Between Inexperienced and Experienced Critical Care Nurses While Using a Closed-Loop Ventilation System-A Prospective Observational Study.Frontiers in medicine · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
15 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe patient monitor (PM) is one of the most commonly used medical devices in hospitals worldwide. PMs are used to monitor patients' vital signs in a wide variety of patient care settings, especially in critical care settings, such as intensive care units. An interesting observation is that the design of PMs has not significantly changed over the past 2 decades, with the layout and structure of PMs more or less unchanged, with incremental changes in design being made rather than transformational changes. Thus, we believe it well-timed to review the design of novel PM interfaces, with particular reference to usability and human factors.
objectiveThis paper aims to review innovations in PM design proposed by researchers and explore how clinicians responded to these design changes.
methodsA literature search of relevant databases, following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines, identified 16 related studies. A detailed description of the interface design and an analysis of each novel PM were carried out, including a detailed analysis of the structure of the different user interfaces, to inform future PM design. The test methodologies used to evaluate the different designs are also presented.
resultsMost of the studies included in this review identified some level of improvement in the clinician's performance when using a novel display in comparison with the traditional PM. For instance, from the 16 reviewed studies, 12 studies identified an improvement in the detection and response times, and 10 studies identified an improvement in the accuracy or treatment efficiency. This indicates that novel displays have the potential to improve the clinical performance of nurses and doctors. However, the outcomes of some of these studies are weakened because of methodological deficiencies. These deficiencies are discussed in detail in this study.
conclusionsMore careful study design is warranted to investigate the user experience and usability of future novel PMs for real time vital sign monitoring, to establish whether or not they could be used successfully in critical care. A series of recommendations on how future novel PM designs and evaluations can be enhanced are provided.
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.