Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32862299›Full record

ReviewCurrent allergy and asthma reports2020

Asking the Right Questions-Human Factors Considerations for Telemedicine Design.

Sarah D Fouquet, Andrew T Miranda

Open access · greenAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Current allergy and asthma reports, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
5.1field-weighted citation impact, top 4% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

13 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 27 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Digital Patient Experience: Umbrella Systematic Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2022
    Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Confronting Disparities in Telehepatology Research.Clinical gastroenterology and hepatology : the official clinical practice journal of the American Gastroenterological Association · 2023
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Sarah D FouquetThe Human Factors Collaborative, Children's Mercy Hospital, 2401 Gillham Road, Kansas City, MO, 64108, USA. sdfouquet@cmh.edu.ORCID 0000-0002-9144-5165
Andrew T MirandaNaval Safety Center, U.S. Navy, Norfolk, VA, USA.
Children's Mercy Hospital · USUnited States Department of the Navy · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purpose of reviewThe goal of this paper was to provide a narrative review of human factors considerations for telemedicine. It also sought to provide readers a foundation of human factors thinking and methods that could be employed within their own practice. RECENT

findingsThere are only a handful of articles that discuss the importance of user-centered design and human factors principles in relation to telemedicine systems. Most articles come to the conclusion that design flaws could have been avoided by involving stakeholders in the design and implementation of telemedicine. However, many of them lack the guidance for those who find themselves having to choose, implement, or use unwieldy systems. With this in mind, this paper provides a series of human factors principles, real-world questions, methods, and resources for those who may find themselves considering, implementing, sustaining, or using telemedicine in their own healthcare settings.

Indexed as

HumansSurveys and QuestionnairesTelemedicineDesignHuman factorsTelemedicineUser experienceUser interface

Identifiers

PMID32862299
PMCPMC7456356
OpenAlexW3082926654

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.