ArticleInternational journal of medical informatics2023
Clinical research staff perceptions on a natural language processing-driven tool for eligibility prescreening: An iterative usability assessment.
Article in International journal of medical informatics, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Criteria2Query 3.0: Leveraging generative large language models for clinical trial eligibility query generation.Journal of biomedical informatics · 2024Article
- Sociotechnical feasibility of natural language processing-driven tools in clinical trial eligibility prescreening for Alzheimer's disease and related dementias.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2024Article
- Clinical researchers' insights on key data for eligibility screening in clinical studies.Journal of clinical and translational science · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundParticipant recruitment is a barrier to successful clinical research. One strategy to improve recruitment is to conduct eligibility prescreening, a resource-intensive process where clinical research staff manually reviews electronic health records data to identify potentially eligible patients. Criteria2Query (C2Q) was developed to address this problem by capitalizing on natural language processing to generate queries to identify eligible participants from clinical databases semi-autonomously.
objectiveWe examined the clinical research staff's perceived usability of C2Q for clinical research eligibility prescreening.
methodsTwenty clinical research staff evaluated the usability of C2Q using a cognitive walkthrough with a think-aloud protocol and a Post-Study System Usability Questionnaire. On-screen activity and audio were recorded and transcribed. After every-five evaluators completed an evaluation, usability problems were rated by informatics experts and prioritized for system refinement. There were four iterations of system refinement based on the evaluation feedback. Guided by the Organizational Framework for Intuitive Human-computer Interaction, we performed a directed deductive content analysis of the verbatim transcriptions.
resultsEvaluators aged from 24 to 46 years old (33.8; SD: 7.32) demonstrated high computer literacy (6.36; SD:0.17); female (75 %), White (35 %), and clinical research coordinators (45 %). C2Q demonstrated high usability during the final cycle (2.26 out of 7 [lower scores are better], SD: 0.74). The number of unique usability issues decreased after each refinement. Fourteen subthemes emerged from three themes: seeking user goals, performing well-learned tasks, and determining what to do next.
conclusionsThe cognitive walkthrough with a think-aloud protocol informed iterative system refinement and demonstrated the usability of C2Q by clinical research staff. Key recommendations for system development and implementation include improving system intuitiveness and overall user experience through comprehensive consideration of user needs and requirements for task completion.
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.