ArticleBMC nursing2025
An integrative review of cognitive workload assessment for safety management.
Article in BMC nursing, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Abstract
backgroundAccurate measurement of cognitive workload is crucial for ensuring system performance and reliability. Currently, cognitive workload has been measured by questionnaire, task performance and physiological parameters. With the rapid development of wearable devices and data mining, more and more researchers applied these technologies to achieve an objective and real-time assessment of cognitive workload, so a review with the updated research on its assessment is in great need.
objectiveTo depict a comprehensive view of cognitive workload assessment in safety management, and offer advice on future assessment for nurse managers.
methodsThis study was conducted following the integrative review method of Whittemore and Knafl. A systematic search of cognitive workload assessment in safety management was conducted across PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus and EBSCO from the inception to January 1st 2025. Data from each article were extracted and summarized in accordance with research question.
results146 articles were included, most of them came from high-risk industries, only 4 were conducted by nurse researchers. NASA-TLX is the most widely used questionnaire. EEG, EOG and ECG were the top 3 preferred signals for classification. Multi-signals can facilitate better classification performance. Among all the classification method, SVM, KNN and composite classifier were more preferred.
conclusionMeasuring cognitive workload by physiological parameters through machine learning can facilitate objective and real-time assessment, but feature artifacts and classification efficiency are two major concerns. Most subjects in included studies were male. Given the uniqueness of nursing work, though this review can offer enlightenment on future cognitive workload assessment, more researches should be done to establish adaptable cognitive workload assessment method.
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.