ArticleClinical, cosmetic and investigational dentistry2025
Usability Assessment of Salud Electronic Dental Record System.
Article in Clinical, cosmetic and investigational dentistry, 2025. 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.
- Comparative Usability Evaluation of Three Digital Smile Design Software Tools Using the System Usability Scale.Dentistry journal · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: As the demand for comprehensive patient records grows, dental practices increasingly adopt Electronic Dental Records (EDRs). This study evaluates the usability of the Salud EDR application implemented at the College of Dentistry, King Saud bin Abdulaziz University for Health Sciences, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, focusing on potential users without prior experience using the application to identify usability challenges and areas for improvement. Theoretical frameworks such as the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) and Diffusion of Innovation (DOI) were employed to contextualize the findings. Methods: A cross-sectional study design was employed, integrating both qualitative and quantitative methods. Think-Aloud sessions captured participants' cognitive processes during task completion, while semi-structured Exit Interviews provided insights into their overall experience and feedback. The System Usability Scale (SUS) questionnaire measured satisfaction, and navigation pathways were analyzed to compare task performance between potential users and an experienced user. Results: Potential users required significantly more clicks to complete tasks than experienced users, indicating navigation challenges. The SUS questionnaire yielded a mean score of 31.1, categorized as "not acceptable", reflecting low Perceived Usefulness and Ease of Use as outlined by TAM. DOI attributes such as high Complexity and low Compatibility were also evident in user feedback. Exit Interviews revealed that participants found the interface complex, with design issues such as unclear icons and terminology further complicating navigation. Discussion: The findings underscore the need for interface design improvements, including clearer icons, terminology, and navigation pathways, to enhance usability and satisfaction. The application of TAM and DOI frameworks provided a structured lens to interpret usability challenges and inform targeted recommendations. This study demonstrates the importance of usability testing in identifying and addressing challenges in EDR systems, contributing to better user experiences and more effective adoption.
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.