Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39476140›Full record

ArticleRevista latino-americana de enfermagem2024

Usability of the "Systematic Review Support" computer system: a methodological study.

Fernanda Martins Dias Escaldelai, Leandro Escaldelai, Denise Pimentel Bergamaschi

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Revista latino-americana de enfermagem, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Fernanda Martins Dias EscaldelaiUniversidade de São Paulo, Faculdade de Saúde Pública, São Paulo, SP, Brazil.ORCID 0000-0003-3457-8428
Leandro EscaldelaiFaculdade de Tecnologia de São Paulo, São Paulo, SP, Brazil.ORCID 0000-0001-8864-5265
Denise Pimentel BergamaschiUniversidade de São Paulo, Faculdade de Saúde Pública, São Paulo, SP, Brazil.ORCID 0000-0002-6889-8588

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

background(1) The "Systematic Review Support" system has a high degree of perceived usability.

background(2)  Its use facilitates the exclusion of duplicate references and the selection of studies.

background(3)  Remote and synchronous usability testing made research possible during the pandemic.

background(4)  Combining usability techniques made it possible to identify the necessary adjustments.

background(5)  The method used expanded the test's capacity in a real context of use. to evaluate the usability of the "Systematic Review Support" computer system. methodological study involving 21 students who evaluated the computer system in a remote and synchronous usability test. Two activities were carried out, containing 21 tasks simulating the initial steps of a review study, proposals for eliminating duplicate references, selecting studies and resolving disagreements between evaluators. At the end, participants answered the System Usability Scale questionnaire. The measures used were: completion rate with assistance (effectiveness) and time to complete the task (efficiency). The data was described in a table using the mean, standard deviation, minimum and maximum values. in a total of 21 tasks, the participants had an assisted completion rate of 9% and an average time of 55.1 minutes (the expected time being 60 minutes). The average score provided by the System Usability Scale instrument was 82.4 (considering a score from 0 to 100), median 85; minimum value 35 and maximum 97.5. the computer system has the effectiveness and efficiency parameters required of a computer review tool. It has a usability score of 82.4 on a scale of 0 to 100 assessed by the System Usability Scale instrument. The version presented incorporates the adjustments identified in the test in use.

Indexed as

User-Computer InterfaceAdultComputer SystemsFemaleHumansMaleSystematic Reviews as TopicYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID39476140
PMCPMC11526212

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.