ArticleDigital health
Clinical decision support for intervention reduction in neonatal patients: A usability assessment.
Article in Digital health. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Objective: This study investigated how effectively simplified cognitive walkthroughs, performed independently by four nonclinical researchers, can be used to assess the usability of clinical decision support software. It also helped illuminate the types of usability issues in clinical decision support software tools that cognitive walkthroughs can identify. Method: A human factors professor and three research assistants each conducted an independent cognitive walkthrough of a web-based demonstration version of T3, a physiologic monitoring system featuring a new clinical decision support software tool called MAnagement Application (MAP). They accessed the demo on personal computers in their homes and used it to walk through several pre-specified tasks, answering three standard questions at each step. Then they met to review and prioritize the findings. Results: Evaluators acknowledged several positive features including concise, helpful tooltips and an informative column in the patient overview which allows users direct (one-click) access to protocol eligibility and compliance criteria. Recommendations to improve usability include: modify the language to clarify what user actions are possible; visually indicate when eligibility flags are snoozed; and specify which protocol's data is currently being shown. Conclusion: Independent, simplified cognitive walkthroughs can help ensure that clinical decision support software tools will appropriately support clinicians. Four researchers used this technique to quickly, inexpensively, and effectively assess T3's new MAP tool, which suggests positive actions, such as removing a patient from a ventilator. Results indicate that, while there is room for usability improvements, the MAP tool may help reduce clinician's cognitive load, facilitating improved care. The study also confirmed that cognitive walkthroughs identify issues that make clinical decision support software hard to learn or remember 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.