Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32960093›Full record

ReviewHuman factors2020

Evaluating Medical Devices Remotely: Current Methods and Potential Innovations.

Anne Collins McLaughlin, Patricia R DeLucia, Frank A Drews, Monifa Vaughn-Cooke, Anil Kumar, Robert R Nesbitt, Kevin Cluff

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Anne Collins McLaughlin6798 North Carolina State University, Raleigh, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-1744-085X
Patricia R DeLucia3990 Rice University, Houston, Texas, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-1735-9154
Frank A Drews172840 University of Utah, Salt Lake City, USA.
Monifa Vaughn-Cooke1068 University of Maryland, College Park, USA.
Anil Kumar7161 San Jose State University, California, USA.
Robert R Nesbitt359181 AbbVie Inc, North Chicago, Illinois, USA.
Kevin CluffBioWork Engineering, LLC, Hamilton, Illinois, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Research DesignTechnologyData CollectionEquipment DesignHumansanalysis and evaluationdesign strategies, toolsmedical devices and technologiesqualitative methodsremote usability testing and evaluation

Identifiers

PMID32960093
PMCPMC7586009

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.