Stacey L Slager1, Charlene R Weir2, Heejun Kim3, Javed Mostafa3, Guilherme Del Fiol4. 1. Department of Biomedical Informatics, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT, USA. 2. Department of Biomedical Informatics, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT, USA; George E Whalen VA Medical Center, Salt Lake City, UT, USA. 3. School of Information and Library Science, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC, USA. 4. Department of Biomedical Informatics, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT, USA. Electronic address: guilherme.delfiol@utah.edu.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To 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. METHODS: A 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. RESULTS: Twenty physicians completed the study. Overall, participants rated the table display more highly than either the text summary or PubMed's summary format (5.9vs. 5.4vs. 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, and conclusion, 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, and conclusion scored the highest (4.9, 4.85, and 4.85 respectively). Participants suggested additional details such as rate of adverse effects. CONCLUSION: The 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.
OBJECTIVE: To 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. METHODS: A 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. RESULTS: Twenty physicians completed the study. Overall, participants rated the table display more highly than either the text summary or PubMed's summary format (5.9vs. 5.4vs. 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, and conclusion, 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, and conclusion scored the highest (4.9, 4.85, and 4.85 respectively). Participants suggested additional details such as rate of adverse effects. CONCLUSION: The 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.
Authors: Salimah Z Shariff; Jessica M Sontrop; R Brian Haynes; Arthur V Iansavichus; K Ann McKibbon; Nancy L Wilczynski; Matthew A Weir; Mark R Speechley; Amardeep Thind; Amit X Garg Journal: CMAJ Date: 2012-01-16 Impact factor: 8.262
Authors: Halil Kilicoglu; Dina Demner-Fushman; Thomas C Rindflesch; Nancy L Wilczynski; R Brian Haynes Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2008-10-24 Impact factor: 4.497
Authors: Paul A Harris; Robert Taylor; Robert Thielke; Jonathon Payne; Nathaniel Gonzalez; Jose G Conde Journal: J Biomed Inform Date: 2008-09-30 Impact factor: 6.317
Authors: Joe Ornelas; Jeffrey R Dichter; Asha V Devereaux; Niranjan Kissoon; Alicia Livinski; Michael D Christian Journal: Chest Date: 2014-10 Impact factor: 9.410
Authors: Cynthia Lokker; R Brian Haynes; Nancy L Wilczynski; K Ann McKibbon; Stephen D Walter Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2011-06-15 Impact factor: 4.497
Authors: Thomas Agoritsas; Arnaud Merglen; Delphine S Courvoisier; Christophe Combescure; Nicolas Garin; Arnaud Perrier; Thomas V Perneger Journal: J Med Internet Res Date: 2012-06-12 Impact factor: 5.428
Authors: Jiantao Bian; Charlene Weir; Prasad Unni; Damian Borbolla; Thomas Reese; Yik-Ki Jacob Wan; Guilherme Del Fiol Journal: J Med Internet Res Date: 2018-06-25 Impact factor: 5.428