Dies ist eine Übersichtsseite mit Metadaten zu dieser wissenschaftlichen Arbeit. Der vollständige Artikel ist beim Verlag verfügbar.
A <scp>Mixed‐Method</scp> Usability Study on User Experience with Systematic Review Software
4
Zitationen
4
Autoren
2021
Jahr
Abstract
Abstract Systematic reviews are widely used in evidence‐based medicine. Conducting a systematic review requires intensive mental efforts, especially during the study screening process. This challenge has motivated the development of intelligent software. This study examined and compared the performance, workload, and user experience of two systematic review tools – Colandr with Artificial Intelligence (AI) features and Covidence without AI features by conducting a mixed‐method usability study. The results showed that reviewers had higher precision in citation screening using Colandr than using Covidence. However, the user experience with Colandr was not optimal due to problems in its user interface design. Therefore, we suggest that the design and development of AI‐enabled SR software emphasize the usability of the interface and apply user‐centered design principles.
Ähnliche Arbeiten
The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews
2021 · 88.571 Zit.
Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement
2009 · 82.987 Zit.
The Measurement of Observer Agreement for Categorical Data
1977 · 77.631 Zit.
Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement
2009 · 63.297 Zit.
Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses
2003 · 61.956 Zit.