ArticleBMJ open2021
Comparison of the validity, perceived usefulness and usability of I-MeDeSA and TEMAS, two tools to evaluate alert system usability: a study protocol.
Article in BMJ open, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Usability evaluation methods for hospital information systems: a systematic review.BMC health services research · 2025Pooled it
- Cognitive task analysis of clinicians' drug-drug interaction management during patient care and implications for alert design.BMJ open · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionResearch has shown that improvements to the usability of medication alert systems are needed. For designers and decisions-makers to assess usability of their alert systems, two paper-based tools are currently available: the instrument for evaluating human-factors principles in medication-related decision support alerts (I-MeDeSA) and the tool for evaluating medication alerting systems (TEMAS). This study aims to compare the validity, usability and usefulness of both tools to identify their strengths and limitations and assist designers and decision-makers in making an informed decision about which tool is most suitable for assessing their current or prospective system. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: First, TEMAS and I-MeDeSA will be translated into French. This translation will be validated by three experts in human factors. Then, in 12 French hospitals with a medication alert system in place, staff with expertise in the system will evaluate their alert system using the two tools successively. After the use of each tool, participants will be asked to fill in the System Usability Scale (SUS) and complete a survey on the understandability and perceived usefulness of each tool. Following the completion of both assessments, participants will be asked to nominate their preferred tool and relay their opinions on the tools. The design philosophy of TEMAS and I-MeDeSA differs on the calculation of a score, impacting the way the comparison between the tools can be performed. Convergent validity will be evaluated by matching the items of the two tools with respect to the usability dimensions they assess. SUS scores and answers to the survey will be statistically compared for I-MeDeSA and TEMAS to identify differences. Free-text responses in surveys will be analysed using an inductive approach. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval is not required in France for a study of this nature. The results will be published in a peer-reviewed journal.
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.