Görges Matthias, Staggers Nancy
Department of Anesthesiology, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT 84132, USA.
J Clin Monit Comput. 2008 Feb;22(1):45-66. doi: 10.1007/s10877-007-9106-8. Epub 2007 Dec 7.
The purpose of this paper is to present the findings from a systematic review of evaluation studies for physiologic monitoring displays, centered on empirical assessments across all available settings and samples. The findings from this review give readers the opportunity to examine past work across studies and set the stage for the design and conduct of future evaluations.
A broad literature search of the literature from 1991 to June 2007 on PubMed and PsycINFO databases was completed to locate data-based articles for physiologic monitoring device display evaluations. The results of this search plus several unpublished works yielded 23 publications and 31 studies.
Participants were faster detecting an adverse event, making a diagnosis or a clinical decision in 18 of 31 studies. They showed improved accuracy in a clinical decision or diagnosis in 13 of 19 studies and they perceived a decreased mental workload in 3 of 8 studies. Eighteen studies used a within subjects design (mean sample size 16.5), and 9 studies used a between group design (mean group size 7.6). Study settings were usability laboratories for 15 studies and patient simulation laboratories for 6 studies. Study participants were anesthesiologists or anesthesiology residents for 19 studies and nurses for 5 studies.
The advent of integrated graphical displays ushered a new era into physiological monitoring display designs. All but one study reported significant differences between traditional, numerical displays and novel displays; yet we know little about which graphical displays are optimal and why particular designs work. Future authors should use a theoretical model or framework to guide the study design, focus on other clinical study participants besides anesthesiologists, employ additional research methods and use more realistic and complex tasks and settings to increase external validity.
本文旨在呈现对生理监测显示器评估研究进行系统综述的结果,重点是对所有可用环境和样本的实证评估。该综述结果让读者有机会审视过往跨研究的工作,并为未来评估的设计与开展奠定基础。
在PubMed和PsycINFO数据库中对1991年至2007年6月的文献进行广泛检索,以查找基于数据的生理监测设备显示器评估文章。该检索结果加上几篇未发表的作品共产生了23篇出版物和31项研究。
在31项研究中的18项里,参与者检测不良事件、做出诊断或临床决策的速度更快。在19项研究中的13项里,他们在临床决策或诊断方面的准确性有所提高,在8项研究中的3项里,他们感觉心理工作量有所减轻。18项研究采用了受试者内设计(平均样本量16.5),9项研究采用了组间设计(平均每组规模7.6)。研究环境方面,15项研究在可用性实验室进行,6项研究在患者模拟实验室进行。研究参与者中,19项研究的参与者为麻醉医生或麻醉科住院医生,5项研究的参与者为护士。
集成图形显示器的出现为生理监测显示器设计开启了一个新时代。除一项研究外,所有研究均报告了传统数字显示器与新型显示器之间存在显著差异;然而,我们对哪种图形显示器是最佳的以及特定设计为何有效知之甚少。未来的作者应使用理论模型或框架来指导研究设计,除麻醉医生外,关注其他临床研究参与者,采用更多研究方法,并使用更现实和复杂的任务及环境以提高外部效度。