ReviewHuman factors2020
Evaluating Medical Devices Remotely: Current Methods and Potential Innovations.
Review in Human factors, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Going Remote-Demonstration and Evaluation of Remote Technology Delivery and Usability Assessment With Older Adults: Survey Study.JMIR mHealth and uHealth · 2021Trial
- Near-Live Simulations to the Rescue: Lessons Learned from Using Alternative Simulation Approaches for Evaluating New Technologies.Extended abstracts on Human factors in computing systems. CHI Conference · 2023Article
- Usability-In-Place-Remote Usability Testing Methods for Homebound Older Adults: Rapid Literature Review.JMIR formative research · 2021Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveWe present examples of laboratory and remote studies, with a focus on studies appropriate for medical device design and evaluation. From this review and description of extant options for remote testing, we provide methods and tools to achieve research goals remotely.
backgroundThe FDA mandates human factors evaluation of medical devices. Studies show similarities and differences in results collected in laboratories compared to data collected remotely in non-laboratory settings. Remote studies show promise, though many of these are behavioral studies related to cognitive or experimental psychology. Remote usability studies are rare but increasing, as technologies allow for synchronous and asynchronous data collection.
methodWe reviewed methods of remote evaluation of medical devices, from testing labels and instruction to usability testing and simulated use. Each method was coded for the attributes (e.g., supported media) that need consideration in usability studies.
resultsWe present examples of how published usability studies of medical devices could be moved to remote data collection. We also present novel systems for creating such tests, such as the use of 3D printed or virtual prototypes. Finally, we advise on targeted participant recruitment.
conclusionRemote testing will bring opportunities and challenges to the field of medical device testing. Current methods are adequate for most purposes, excepting the validation of Class III devices. APPLICATION: The tools we provide enable the remote evaluation of medical devices. Evaluations have specific research goals, and our framework of attributes helps to select or combine tools for valid testing of medical devices.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.