You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output.
Click here to find out more.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
The usability of ventilators: a comparative evaluation of use safety and user experience
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Critical Care, August 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s13054-016-1431-1 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Plinio P. Morita, Peter B. Weinstein, Christopher J. Flewwelling, Carleene A. Bañez, Tabitha A. Chiu, Mario Iannuzzi, Aastha H. Patel, Ashleigh P. Shier, Joseph A. Cafazzo |
| Abstract |
The design complexity of critical care ventilators (CCVs) can lead to use errors and patient harm. In this study, we present the results of a comparison of four CCVs from market leaders, using a rigorous methodology for the evaluation of use safety and user experience of medical devices. We carried out a comparative usability study of four CCVs: Hamilton G5, Puritan Bennett 980, Maquet SERVO-U, and Dräger Evita V500. Forty-eight critical care respiratory therapists participated in this fully counterbalanced, repeated measures study. Participants completed seven clinical scenarios composed of 16 tasks on each ventilator. Use safety was measured by percentage of tasks with use errors or close calls (UE/CCs). User experience was measured by system usability and workload metrics, using the Post-Study System Usability Questionnaire (PSSUQ) and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration Task Load Index (NASA-TLX). Nine of 18 post hoc contrasts between pairs of ventilators were significant after Bonferroni correction, with effect sizes between 0.4 and 1.09 (Cohen's d). There were significantly fewer UE/CCs with SERVO-U when compared to G5 (p = 0.044) and V500 (p = 0.020). Participants reported higher system usability for G5 when compared to PB980 (p = 0.035) and higher system usability for SERVO-U when compared to G5 (p < 0.001), PB980 (p < 0.001), and V500 (p < 0.001). Participants reported lower workload for G5 when compared to PB980 (p < 0.001) and lower workload for SERVO-U when compared to PB980 (p < 0.001) and V500 (p < 0.001). G5 scored better on two of nine possible comparisons; SERVO-U scored better on seven of nine possible comparisons. Aspects influencing participants' performance and perception include the low sensitivity of G5's touchscreen and the positive effect from the quality of SERVO-U's user interface design. This study provides empirical evidence of how four ventilators from market leaders compare and highlights the importance of medical technology design. Within the boundaries of this study, we can infer that SERVO-U demonstrated the highest levels of use safety and user experience, followed by G5. Based on qualitative data, differences in outcomes could be explained by interaction design, quality of hardware components used in manufacturing, and influence of consumer product technology on users' expectations. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 47 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 8 | 17% |
| United States | 7 | 15% |
| Spain | 3 | 6% |
| Canada | 2 | 4% |
| Colombia | 2 | 4% |
| Vietnam | 1 | 2% |
| Saudi Arabia | 1 | 2% |
| Ecuador | 1 | 2% |
| Mexico | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 3 | 6% |
| Unknown | 18 | 38% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 31 | 66% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 9 | 19% |
| Scientists | 5 | 11% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 2 | 4% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 121 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 121 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 22 | 18% |
| Student > Bachelor | 14 | 12% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 13 | 11% |
| Researcher | 10 | 8% |
| Other | 9 | 7% |
| Other | 19 | 16% |
| Unknown | 34 | 28% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Engineering | 23 | 19% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 20 | 17% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 9 | 7% |
| Computer Science | 8 | 7% |
| Design | 5 | 4% |
| Other | 19 | 16% |
| Unknown | 37 | 31% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 29. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 30 March 2020.
All research outputs
#1,329,760
of 25,371,288 outputs
Outputs from Critical Care
#1,133
of 6,554 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#24,164
of 355,178 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Care
#40
of 104 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,371,288 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,554 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.8. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 355,178 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 104 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 61% of its contemporaries.