ArticleCanadian journal of pain = Revue canadienne de la douleur2018
Development and Usability Evaluation of a Desktop Software Application for Pain Assessment in Infants.
Article in Canadian journal of pain = Revue canadienne de la douleur, 2018. 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, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPain assessment is a key component of pain management and research in infants. We developed software to assist in coding of pain in infants called PAiN (Pain Assessment in Neonates).
aimsThe aims of this study were to evaluate the usability of PAiN in terms of effectiveness, efficiency, and satisfaction among novice and expert users and to compare the efficiency and satisfaction of PAiN to existing software for coding of infant pain among expert users.
methodsA quantitative usability testing approach was conducted with two participant groups, representing novice and expert end-users. Testing included an observed session with each participant completing a pain assessment coding task, followed by administration of the Post Study System Usability Questionnaire and Desirability Toolkit. For comparison, the usability of existing coding software was also evaluated by the expert group.
resultsTwelve novice and six expert users participated. Novice users committed 14 noncritical navigational errors, and experts committed six. For experts, the median time for completing the coding task was 28.6 min in PAiN, compared to 46.5 min using the existing software. The mean Post Study System Usability Questionnaire score among novice (1.89) and expert users (1.40) was not significantly different (
conclusionsUsers were highly satisfied with PAiN. Experts were more efficient with PAiN compared to the existing software. The study was critical to ensuring that PAiN is error free and easy to use prior to implementation.
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.