ArticlePloS one2026
Digital transformation in laboratory documentation: Insights from an eLabFTW case study and a survey-informed onboarding framework.
Article in PloS one, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThis study addresses the implementation of the electronic laboratory notebook (ELN) eLabFTW at the University Medicine Halle (UMH) and collaborating departments at Martin Luther University Halle-Wittenberg. It explores how ELNs can improve research documentation by increasing efficiency, data quality, and alignment with (FAIR) principles, while also navigating institutional and user-specific challenges.
methodsA structured, multi-phase approach was followed, including stakeholder engagement, an interdisciplinary pilot phase, and technical integration into institutional infrastructure. Evaluation was conducted via a comprehensive user survey covering documentation practices, system requirements, and acceptance factors. The survey yielded 55 fully analyzable responses (n = 55). Additionally, custom Shiny applications and practical checklists were developed to streamline implementation and onboarding. These tools are published via GitHub and accompany this work as reusable resources for other research institutions.
resultsMost respondents (78%) reported extensive documentation experience, but frequently cited challenges such as time burden (67%), inefficient organization (63%), and difficulties retrieving information (63%). Traditional tools such as spreadsheets (87%) and paper notebooks (85%) dominate, but 90% emphasized user-friendliness as a key requirement for ELN adoption. Structured training (71%) and ongoing technical support (52%) were also deemed essential for success. During the 22-month institutional rollout period (October 2024 to July 2026), the platform grew to 237 registered users across 32 research teams, with 4,263 active experiments created by the end of the observation period.
conclusionThe observed adoption demonstrates that a structured, user-centered implementation strategy can support the integration of an ELN into routine research practice. In addition to empirical insights, this publication provides openly accessible tools including Shiny apps and checklists that facilitate ELN onboarding and can support efficient implementation strategies in other institutional contexts. An important extension of the implementation was the integration of customizable dashboards, developed using Apache Superset and integrated into the institutional Confluence environment. These enable the secondary use of structured documentation data for visualization, quality monitoring, and reporting, providing additional analytical capabilities beyond the primary documentation function of the ELN. ELNs can support transparent, collaborative, and sustainable research data management when combined with structured implementation and institutional support.
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.