ArticleACI open2025
Agile User-Centered Design of a Clinical Research Project Management System in a Pediatric Health Institute.
Article in ACI open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. 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
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Project management is crucial in academic hospitals due to the intensive involvement in research and clinical trials. Designing an application in a user-centered and workflow-compatible manner can prevent issues arising from hospital's limited resources and various risks (e.g., financial risk and ethical misconduct). Objectives: This study aimed to (1) develop a hybrid method combining user-centered design (UCD) and agile software development (ASD) principles, (2) apply the hybrid model to develop a Clinical Research Project Management System (CRPMS), (3) assess the usability of the CRPMS and iteratively refine the application. Materials and Methods: A CRPMS was developed following the UCD and ASD principles and supported by a research core in a pediatric heart institute. In Phase 0, semi-structured interviews were conducted to understand processes and bottlenecks. In Phase 1, the project management and budgeting sections of the CRPMS were simultaneously developed. In Phase 2, the Principal Investigator dashboard and the intake section of the CRPMS were developed. Usability evaluation metrics included the System Usability Scale (SUS), Single Ease Question, and severity scores. Results: In Phase 1, the average SUS score was 88.65. There were 126 usability issues and 68 were considered high severity due to the SUS score cutoff (>1.5). In Phase 2, the average SUS score was 87.1. All of the 71 usability issues were addressed during the iterative refinements. Conclusion: A workflow-compatible and highly user-friendly CRPMS was developed by employing a hybrid Agile UCD model. Future work includes continuing development and expanding the CRPMS within and outside the institute.
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.