ArticleMayo Clinic proceedings. Innovations, quality & outcomes2021
Usability of a Digital Registry to Promote Secondary Prevention for Peripheral Artery Disease Patients.
Article in Mayo Clinic proceedings. Innovations, quality & outcomes, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Design, development and evaluation of registry software for upper limb disabilities.Healthcare technology letters · 2024Article
- Sociotechnical feasibility of natural language processing-driven tools in clinical trial eligibility prescreening for Alzheimer's disease and related dementias.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
17 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo evaluate usability of a quality improvement tool that promotes guideline-based care for patients with peripheral arterial disease (PAD). PATIENTS AND
methodsThe study was conducted from July 19, 2018, to August 21, 2019. We compared the usability of a PAD cohort knowledge solution (CKS) with standard management supported by an electronic health record (EHR). Two scenarios were developed for usability evaluation; the first for the PAD-CKS while the second evaluated standard EHR workflow. Providers were asked to provide opinions about the PAD-CKS tool and to generate a System Usability Scale (SUS) score. Metrics analyzed included time required, number of mouse clicks, and number of keystrokes.
resultsUsability evaluations were completed by 11 providers. SUS for the PAD-CKS was excellent at 89.6. Time required to complete 21 tasks in the CKS was 4 minutes compared with 12 minutes for standard EHR workflow (median,
conclusionsUsability evaluation of the PAD-CKS tool demonstrated time savings, a high SUS score, and a reduction of mouse clicks and keystrokes for task completion compared to standard workflow using the EHR. Provider feedback regarding the strengths and weaknesses also created opportunities for iterative improvement of the PAD-CKS tool.
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.