ArticleJMIR human factors2022
Development of a Connected Sensor System in Colorectal Surgery: User-Centered Design Case Study.
Article in JMIR human factors, 2022. 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.
- Examining Challenges to Co-Design Digital Health Interventions With End Users: Systematic Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2025Pooled it
- A User-Centered Approach in the Development of a Label-Free Impedimetric Chemiresistor for HACS omega · 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundA successful innovative medical device is not only technically challenging to develop but must also be readily usable to be integrated into health care professionals' daily practice. Through a user-centered design (UCD) approach, usability can be improved. However, this type of approach is not widely implemented from the early stages of medical device development.
objectiveThe case study presented here shows how UCD may be applied at the very early stage of the design of a disruptive medical device used in a complex hospital environment, while no functional device is available yet. The device under study is a connected sensor system to detect colorectal anastomotic leakage, the most detrimental complication following colorectal surgery, which has a high medical cost. We also aimed to provide usability guidelines for the initial design of other innovative medical devices.
methodsUCD was implemented by actively involving health care professionals and all the industrial partners of the project. The methodology was conducted in 2 European hospitals: Grenoble-Alpes University Hospital (France) and Erasmus Medical Center Rotterdam (the Netherlands). A total of 6 elective colorectal procedures and 5 ward shifts were observed. In total, 4 workshops were conducted with project partners and clinicians. A formative evaluation was performed based on 5 usability tests using nonfunctional prototype systems. The case study was completed within 12 months.
resultsFunctional specifications were defined for the various components of the medical device: device weight, size, design, device attachment, and display module. These specifications consider the future integration of the medical device into current clinical practice (for use in an operating room and patient follow-up inside the hospital) and interactions between surgeons, nurses, nurse assistants, and patients. By avoiding irrelevant technical development, this approach helps to promote cost-effective design.
conclusionsThis paper presents the successful deployment over 12 months of a UCD methodology for the design of an innovative medical device during its early development phase. To help in reusing this methodology to design other innovative medical devices, we suggested best practices based on this case.
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.