ArticleCancer reports (Hoboken, N.J.)2025
Exploring Usability of a Clinical Decision Support System for Cancer Care: A User-Centered Study.
Article in Cancer reports (Hoboken, N.J.), 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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAdverse effects are a common burden for cancer patients, impacting their well-being and diminishing their quality of life. Therefore, it is essential to have a clinical decision support system that can proactively monitor patient progress to prevent and manage complications.
aimsThis research aims to thoroughly test the usability and user-friendliness of a medical device designed for managing adverse events for cancer patients and healthcare professionals (HCPs). The study seeks to assess how well the device meets both patients' and HCPs' needs in real-world scenarios. METHODS AND
resultsThe study used a multi-method approach to obtain a comprehensive understanding of participants experience and objective measure of usability. The testing was conducted with a diverse group of participants of six patients and six HCPs. Analysis included a descriptive summary of the demographic data, scenario completion rates, System Usability Scale (SUS) questionnaire score, and qualitative feedback from users. All participants successfully completed 100% of the activities, indicating a high level of understanding and usability across both user groups. Only two out of six patients encountered errors during the login activities, but these errors were unrelated to product safety. The obtained SUS score is in the 90th percentile for both user groups, classifying the device as grade A and highlighting its superior usability. Patients and HCPs found the interface intuitive and expressed an interest in incorporating the application into their daily routines and would recommend the application to others.
conclusionThe assessed digital health medical device demonstrates excellent usability, safety, and ease of use for oncology patients and HCPs. Based on the received constructive feedback, minor improvements were identified for further refinement of the application that do not affect either its intended functionality or the overall functioning of the tool. Future work will focus on implementing these improvements and conducting further usability studies in clinical environments.
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.