Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34287211›Full record

ArticleJMIR medical informatics2021

Evaluation of Three Feasibility Tools for Identifying Patient Data and Biospecimen Availability: Comparative Usability Study.

Christina Schüttler, Hans-Ulrich Prokosch, Martin Sedlmayr, Brita Sedlmayr

Erratum issuedOpen access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR medical informatics, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
3.8field-weighted citation impact, top 7% 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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Christina SchüttlerChair of Medical Informatics, Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg, Erlangen, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9008-1868
Hans-Ulrich ProkoschChair of Medical Informatics, Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg, Erlangen, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6200-753X
Martin SedlmayrInstitute for Medical Informatics and Biometry, Carl Gustav Carus Faculty of Medicine, Technische Universität Dresden, Dresden, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9888-8460
Brita SedlmayrInstitute for Medical Informatics and Biometry, Carl Gustav Carus Faculty of Medicine, Technische Universität Dresden, Dresden, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6159-7822
Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg · DEUniversity Hospital Carl Gustav Carus · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundTo meet the growing importance of real-word data analysis, clinical data and biosamples must be timely made available. Feasibility platforms are often the first contact point for determining the availability of such data for specific research questions. Therefore, a user-friendly interface should be provided to enable access to this information easily. The German Medical Informatics Initiative also aims to establish such a platform for its infrastructure. Although some of these platforms are actively used, their tools still have limitations. Consequently, the Medical Informatics Initiative consortium MIRACUM (Medical Informatics in Research and Care in University Medicine) committed itself to analyzing the pros and cons of existing solutions and to designing an optimized graphical feasibility user interface.

objectiveThe aim of this study is to identify the system that is most user-friendly and thus forms the best basis for developing a harmonized tool. To achieve this goal, we carried out a comparative usability evaluation of existing tools used by researchers acting as end users.

methodsThe evaluation included three preselected search tools and was conducted as a qualitative exploratory study with a randomized design over a period of 6 weeks. The tools in question were the MIRACUM i2b2 (Informatics for Integrating Biology and the Bedside) feasibility platform, OHDSI's (Observational Health Data Sciences and Informatics) ATLAS, and the Sample Locator of the German Biobank Alliance. The evaluation was conducted in the form of a web-based usability test (usability walkthrough combined with a web-based questionnaire) with participants aged between 26 and 63 years who work as medical doctors.

resultsIn total, 17 study participants evaluated the three tools. The overall evaluation of usability, which was based on the System Usability Scale, showed that the Sample Locator, with a mean System Usability Scale score of 77.03 (SD 20.62), was significantly superior to the other two tools (Wilcoxon test; Sample Locator vs i2b2: P=.047; Sample Locator vs ATLAS: P=.001). i2b2, with a score of 59.83 (SD 25.36), performed significantly better than ATLAS, which had a score of 27.81 (SD 21.79; Wilcoxon test; i2b2 vs ATLAS: P=.005). The analysis of the material generated by the usability walkthrough method confirmed these findings. ATLAS caused the most usability problems (n=66), followed by i2b2 (n=48) and the Sample Locator (n=22). Moreover, the Sample Locator achieved the highest ratings with respect to additional questions regarding satisfaction with the tools.

conclusionsThis study provides data to develop a suitable basis for the selection of a harmonized tool for feasibility studies via concrete evaluation and a comparison of the usability of three different types of query builders. The feedback obtained from the participants during the usability test made it possible to identify user problems and positive design aspects of the individual tools and compare them qualitatively.

Indexed as

evaluationfeasibilityresearchsoftware toolsuser interface

Identifiers

PMID34287211
PMCPMC8339981
OpenAlexW3185442588

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.