Physicians' perception of alternative displays of clinical research evidence for clinical decision support - A study with case vignettes.
Physicians' perception of alternative displays of clinical research evidence for clinical decision support - A study with case vignettes.
复制标题
医生对用于临床决策支持的临床研究证据的替代展示的看法 - 案例小插图的研究。
DOI：
10.1016/j.jbi.2017.01.007
复制
发表时间：
2017
影响因子：
4.5
通讯作者：
DelFiol,Guilherme
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Slager,StaceyL;Weir,CharleneR;Kim,Heejun;Mostafa,Javed;DelFiol,Guilherme
ObjectiveTo design alternate information displays that present summaries of clinical trial results to clinicians to support decision-making; and to compare the displays according to efficacy and acceptability.MethodsA 6-between (information display presentation order) by 3-within (display type) factorial design. Two alternate displays were designed based on Information Foraging theory: a narrative summary that reduces the content to a few sentences; and a table format that structures the display according to the PICO (Population,Intervention,Comparison,Outcome) framework. The designs were compared with the summary display format available in PubMed. Physicians were asked to review five clinical studies retrieved for a case vignette; and were presented with the three display formats. Participants were asked to rate their experience with each of the information displays according to a Likert scale questionnaire.ResultsTwenty physicians completed the study. Overall, participants rated the table display more highly than either the text summary or PubMed’s summary format (5.9 vs. 5.4 vs. 3.9 on a scale between 1 [strongly disagree] and 7 [strongly agree]). Usefulness ratings of seven pieces of information, i.e.patient population,patient age range, sample size, study arm,primary outcome, results of primary outcome,andconclusion, were high (average across all items = 4.71 on a 1 to 5 scale, with 1 = not at all useful and 5 = very useful). Study arm,primary outcome, andconclusionscored the highest (4.9, 4.85, and 4.85 respectively). Participants suggested additional details such as rate of adverse effects.ConclusionThe table format reduced physicians’ perceived cognitive effort when quickly reviewing clinical trial information and was more favorably received by physicians than the narrative summary or PubMed’s summary format display.
登录
查看更多内容
影响因子：
4.7
作者：
S. Hosny;M. Ghaly
通讯作者：
S. Hosny;M. Ghaly
自动提取报告的统计分析：实现临床试验文献的逻辑表示
DOI：
--
发表时间：
2012
期刊：
American Medical Informatics Association Annual Symposium
影响因子：
--
作者：
William Hsu;W. Speier;R. Taira
通讯作者：
R. Taira
影响因子：
3.9
作者：
Brignardello-Petersen, Romina;Carrasco-Labra, Alonso;Agoritsas, Thomas
通讯作者：
Agoritsas, Thomas
影响因子：
1.7
作者：
Caldwell, Patrina H. Y.;Bennett, Trish;Mellis, Craig
通讯作者：
Mellis, Craig
实现高质量临床证据的自动识别。
影响因子：
--
作者：
Kilicoglu,Halil;Demner-Fushman,Dina;Rindflesch,ThomasC;Wilczynski,NancyL;Haynes,RBrian
通讯作者：
Haynes,RBrian