ArticleNorthern clinics of Istanbul2025
Usability assessments in clinical decision support systems.
Article in Northern clinics of Istanbul, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Optimizing Clinical Decision Support for Antibiotic Prescribing in Pediatric Acute Respiratory Tract Infections: A Usability Study.Applied clinical informatics · 2026Article
- User-Centered Formative Evaluation of Cognitive Rehabilitation Software: Cognitive Walkthrough and System Usability Scale Study.JMIR formative research · 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Clinical decision support (CDS) tools play a crucial role in assisting healthcare professionals in making informed decisions. However, the full potential of CDS systems has not been realized due to various usability issues. This paper provides an overview of usability issues identified in CDS tools, including graphical user interface issues, user experience problems, terminology clarity, and user control problems. Several usability assessment methods, such as heuristic evaluation, think-aloud testing, cognitive walk-through, and surveys, are employed to evaluate CDS tool usability. These methods reveal strengths and weaknesses in CDS tool design, guiding improvements to enhance usability. The findings of this review emphasize the importance of incorporating user feedback, employing iterative processes, and addressing interface design challenges to optimize the usability and acceptance of CDS tools in healthcare settings. By addressing these usability issues, healthcare professionals can leverage CDS tools effectively to improve patient outcomes.
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.