ArticleJMIR human factors2024
User Experience Evaluation of a Spinal Surgery Robot: Workload, Usability, and Satisfaction Study.
Article in JMIR human factors, 2024. 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, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Surgeons' Perception Questionnaire on Robotics (SPQR): development and preliminary validation of a surgeon-reported instrument for robotic surgery.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Article
- Effectiveness Assessment of a Multi-Functional Neonatal Incubator in the NICU.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Usability Validation of an Integrated Hemodynamic and Pulmonary Monitoring System Using Eye-Tracking Analysis.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
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 at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundRobotic spine surgery has continued to evolve since its US Food and Drug Administration approval in 2004, with products now including real-time video guidance and navigation during surgery. As the market for robotic surgical devices evolves, it is important to consider usability factors.
objectiveThe primary objective of this study was to determine the user experience of a surgical-assistive robotic device. The secondary objective was to evaluate workload, usability, the After-Scenario Questionnaire (ASQ), and the System Usability Scale (SUS). In addition, this study compares the workload, usability, and satisfaction survey of the device among different occupational groups using the device.
methodsDoctors (n=15) and nurses (n=15), the intended users of the surgical assistant robot, participated in the usability evaluation. Participants performed essential scenarios for the surgical assistant robot and provided scenario-specific satisfaction (ASQ), workload (NASA Task Load Index), and usability (SUS) scores.
resultsBoth doctors and nurses had task success rates of 85% or higher for each scenario. ASQ results showed that both doctors and nurses were least satisfied with ease of completing the task of registration (group 1: mean 4.73, SD 1.57 and group 2: mean 4.47, SD 1.8), amount of time it took (group 1: mean 4.47, SD 1.63 and group 2: mean 4.40, SD 2.09), and support information satisfaction (group 1: mean 5.13, SD 1.50 and group 2: mean 5.13, SD 1.89). All participants had low workloads, and the overall Task Load Index score had a P value of .77, which is greater than .05. The SUS results showed that the overall usability mean for doctors was 64.17 (SD 16.52) and the mean for nurses was 61.67 (SD 19.18), with a P value of .84, which is greater than .05, indicating no difference between the 2 groups.
conclusionsIn this study, doctors and nurses evaluated the interaction of the device in a simulated environment, the operating room. By evaluating the use experience and usability of the device with real intended users, we can develop a more effective and convenient user interface.
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.