ArticleScience progress
Usability testing of radiotherapy systems as a medical device evaluation tool to inform hospital procurement decision-making.
Article in Science progress. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Leveraging large language models for heuristic usability assessment of medical software: Insights with the Radiation Planning Assistant.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2026Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposePoor usability designs of radiotherapy systems can contribute to use errors and adverse events. Therefore, we evaluated the usability of two radiotherapy systems through radiation therapists' performance, workload, and experience that can inform hospital procurement decision-making about the selection of appropriate radiotherapy system for radiation therapist use.
methodsWe performed a comparative usability study for two radiotherapy systems through user testing. Thirty radiation therapists participated in our study, in which four typical operational tasks were performed in two tested radiotherapy systems. User performance was measured by task completion time and completion difficulty level. User workloads were measured by perceived and physiological workload using NASA-TLX questionnaires and eye motion data. User experience was measured by the USE questionnaire.
resultsSignificantly less task completion time and an easier task completion difficulty level were shown with the Varian Trilogy than with the XHA600E. The study results suggest that higher perceived and physiological workloads were experienced with the XHA600E than with the Varian Trilogy. Radiation therapists reported better user experience with the Varian Trilogy than with the XHA600E. Five paired
conclusionsBased on study results, we confirmed that the Varian Trilogy radiotherapy system has a better usability design than the XHA600E radiotherapy system. Furthermore, the study results provide valuable evidence for hospital procurement decision-making regarding the selection of a suitable radiotherapy system for radiation therapists to use.
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.