ArticleBriefings in bioinformatics2026
A scoping review of approaches to evaluating workflow management systems for bioinformatics users.
Article in Briefings in bioinformatics, 2026. 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
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Workflow Management Systems (WMSs) make it easier to run bioinformatics analyses by combining tools into reusable workflows. However, selecting the right WMS can be challenging, particularly for users from noncomputational backgrounds. Many reviews of WMSs focus on technical details or only consider usability from the perspective of developers. The first objective of this scoping review was to identify the characteristics of bioinformatics WMSs that are most relevant for life scientists. The second objective was to explore how these characteristics have previously been evaluated. The review included 21 papers published since 2018 that evaluated bioinformatics WMSs based on criteria relating to the user experience. Published papers and websites describing 55 currently available WMSs were also included to identify characteristics highlighted by their developers. Twelve themes emerged from these evaluation criteria and WMS characteristics: Basic Computing, Functions, Security, Scalability, Cost/Efficiency, Sustainability, Usability, Learnability, Reproducibility, FAIRness (Findability, Accessibility, Interoperability, Reusability), Flexibility, and Support. Evaluations focusing on the needs of noncomputational users preferred Graphical User Interfaces and platforms that provided plenty of guidance for users. Papers prioritizing the needs of developers instead favoured text-based interfaces and flexible platforms that gave users greater control. In addition to these contrasting views on what was considered a positive characteristic, differences in how criteria were defined and scored meant that evaluations could not be compared between papers and would be impossible for users to repeat on new or updated WMSs. Users do not currently have a clear approach to follow when selecting a WMS.
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.