ArticleJMIR human factors2023
Empowering Researchers to Query Medical Data and Biospecimens by Ensuring Appropriate Usability of a Feasibility Tool: Evaluation Study.
Article in JMIR human factors, 2023. 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.
- Bridging Data Models in Health Care With a Novel Intermediate Query Format for Feasibility Queries: Mixed Methods Study.JMIR medical informatics · 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe Aligning Biobanking and Data Integration Centers Efficiently project aims to harmonize technologies and governance structures of German university hospitals and their biobanks to facilitate searching for patient data and biospecimens. The central element will be a feasibility tool for researchers to query the availability of samples and data to determine the feasibility of their study project.
objectiveThe objectives of the study were as follows: an evaluation of the overall user interface usability of the feasibility tool, the identification of critical usability issues, comprehensibility of the underlying ontology operability, and analysis of user feedback on additional functionalities. From these, recommendations for quality-of-use optimization, focusing on more intuitive usability, were derived.
methodsTo achieve the study goal, an exploratory usability test consisting of 2 main parts was conducted. In the first part, the thinking aloud method (test participants express their thoughts aloud throughout their use of the tool) was complemented by a quantitative questionnaire. In the second part, the interview method was combined with supplementary mock-ups to collect users' opinions on possible additional features.
resultsThe study cohort rated global usability of the feasibility tool based on the System Usability Scale with a good score of 81.25. The tasks assigned posed certain challenges. No participant was able to solve all tasks correctly. A detailed analysis showed that this was mostly because of minor issues. This impression was confirmed by the recorded statements, which described the tool as intuitive and user friendly. The feedback also provided useful insights regarding which critical usability problems occur and need to be addressed promptly.
conclusionsThe findings indicate that the prototype of the Aligning Biobanking and Data Integration Centers Efficiently feasibility tool is headed in the right direction. Nevertheless, we see potential for optimization primarily in the display of the search functions, the unambiguous distinguishability of criteria, and the visibility of their associated classification system. Overall, it can be stated that the combination of different tools used to evaluate the feasibility tool provided a comprehensive picture of its usability.
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.