ArticleBMC medical informatics and decision making2023
A WeChat applet-based national remote emergency system for malignant hyperthermia in China: a usability study.
Article in BMC medical informatics and decision making, 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, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- The Effectiveness of a Mobile National Remote Emergency System for Malignant Hyperthermia in China: Retrospective Pre-Post Implementation Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2025Article
- Article
- Nutrition Management Miniprograms in WeChat: Evaluation of Functionality and Quality.JMIR human factors · 2024Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMalignant hyperthermia (MH) is a rare anesthetic emergency with a high mortality rate in China. We developed a WeChat applet-based National Remote Emergency System for Malignant Hyperthermia (MH-NRES) to provide a real-time emergency system to help Chinese anesthesiologists deal with MH crises. However, it is imperative that close attention should be paid to the usability of the applet. PURPOSE: The objectives of this study were to (1) evaluate the usability of the applet-based MH-NRES for anesthesiologists; and (2) to test the validity and reliability of a modified mHealth app usability questionnaire.
methodsA modified User Version of the Mobile Application Rating Scale (uMARS) was designed. Together with System Usability Scale (SUS) and Post-Study System Usability Questionnaire (PSSUQ), another two well-validated questionnaires, uMARS were then used to evaluate the usability of MH-NRES. The Cronbach alpha of the total score and the subscales of uMARS was calculated to evaluate the internal consistency. The correlation coefficients among three questionnaires were calculated.
resultsIn this study, 118 anesthesiologists provided responses to the questionnaire. The overall mean uMARS score was 4.43 ± 0.61, which ranged from 3 to 5. The mean PSSUQ score were in good to excellent range with mean of 6.02 ± 0.97, which ranged from 3.19 to 7. The overall SUS score was 76.0 ± 17.6, which ranged from 45 to 100. The total uMARS score had excellent internal consistency (Cronbach alpha = 0.984). uMARS and its subscales were strongly correlated with PSSUQ (coefficient 0.758-0.819, P < 0.001) and SUS (coefficient 0.535-0.561, P < 0.001), respectively.
conclusionsData obtained from the usability evaluation questionnaires in this study indicated a high quality of the MH-NRES on the ease of use, satisfaction and perceived usefulness, which suggest this system might be a useful tool for anesthesiologists' education and management of MH crises. Future feedback from high-fidelity simulation and clinical scenarios are need for further usability evaluation of this system.
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.