ArticleMedical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research2023
Usability Study on Patient Monitoring Systems: An Evaluation of a User Interface Based on User Experience and Preference.
Article in Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Usability Evaluation of a Central Monitoring System with AI-Based Cardiac Arrest Prediction in the ICU.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Reducing False Alarm Rates and Workload in ICUs by Improving Arrhythmia Detection Algorithms of Patient Monitoring Systems.Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research · 2025Article
- Evaluation of IMPALA 2.0: Addressing Patient Monitoring in Low-Resource Hospitals in Malawi.Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research · 2024Article
- Smart Medical Evacuation Support System for the Military.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- User Experience Evaluation of a Spinal Surgery Robot: Workload, Usability, and Satisfaction Study.JMIR human factors · 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND The poor ergonomic design of patient monitoring systems can cause user errors and patient harm. This paper presents the results of a comparative usability study based on user experience and the results of a user preference survey. MATERIAL AND METHODS We conducted a usability study of 3 patient monitoring systems: Mediana M50, Philips IntelliVue MP70, and Philips IntelliVue MX700. Thirty-nine Coronary Care Unit nurses and 19 Pulmonology and Allergy Care Unit nurses participated in this usability study. User experience was assessed with the Post-Study System Usability Questionnaire and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration Task Load Index. A user preference survey was conducted to evaluate the subjective medical device design preferences for the M50 system's user interface. RESULTS Nurses from the Coronary Care Unit recognized a higher system usability for the MP70 than the M50 (P=0.001) system, and a lower workload for the MP70 compared with the M50 (P=0.005) system. There was no significant (P>0.05) difference in perceived system usability and workload between the M50 and MX700 systems for the nurses from the Pulmonology and Allergy Care Unit. Nurses preferred to activate the arrhythmia alarms except for the ST alarms and missed the beat alarm. They also preferred having a wave freeze function, standby mode, and early warning scoring function, which provides a signal for a patient's deterioration in health. CONCLUSIONS The study provides valuable data on a user interface evaluation based on user experience and preference. The outcome of this study will be helpful for designing next-generation patient monitors with improved patient safety.
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.