ArticlePediatric quality & safety
Simulation-based User-centered Design: An Approach to Device Development during COVID-19.
Article in Pediatric quality & safety. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 17 citations in OpenAlex.
- Enhancing Left Ventricular Assist Device Usability: A Comparative Simulation Study of CorWave and HeartMate 3 Peripherals.ASAIO journal (American Society for Artificial Internal Organs : 1992) · 2026Article
- Human Factors in Airway Management: Designing Systems for Safer, Team-Based Care.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
- How to co-design a prototype of a clinical practice tool: a framework with practical guidance and a case study.BMJ quality & safety · 2024Article
- Simulation-based development: shaping clinical procedures for extra-uterine life support technology.Advances in simulation (London, England) · 2023Article
- User-Centered Design to Reduce Inappropriate Blood Transfusion Orders.Applied clinical informatics · 2023Article
- Let us to the TWISST; Plan, Simulate, Study and Act.Pediatric quality & safetyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionSince the onset of COVID-19, intubations have become very high risk for clinical teams. Barrier devices during endotracheal intubation protect clinicians from the aerosols generated. Simulation-based user-centered design (UCD) was an iterative design process used to develop a pediatric intubation aerosol containment system (IACS). Simulation was anchored in human factor engineering and UCD to better understand clinicians' complex interaction with the IACS device, elicit user wants and needs, identify design inefficiencies, and unveil safety concerns.
methodsThis study was a prospective observational study of a simulation-based investigation used to design a pediatric IACS rapidly. Debriefing and Failure Mode and Effect Analysis identified latent conditions related to 5 device prototypes. Design iterations made were based on feedback provided to the engineering team after each simulation.
resultsSimulation identified 32 latent conditions, resulting in 5 iterations of the IACS prototype. The prototypes included an (1) intubation box; (2) IACS shield; (3) IACS frame with PVC pipes; (4) IACS plexiglass frame, and finally, (5) IACS frame without a plexiglass top.
conclusionsIntegration of simulation with human factor ergonomics and UCD, in partnership with mechanical engineers, facilitated a novel context to design and redesign a pediatric IACS to meet user needs and address safety concerns.
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.