Use my Search Websuite to scan PubMed, PMCentral, Journal Hosts and Journal Archives, FullText. Kick-your-searchterm to multiple Engines kick-your-query now !>

A dictionary by aggregated review articles of nephrology, medicine and the life sciences Your one-stop-run pathway from word to the immediate pdf of peer-reviewed on-topic knowledge.

10.1177/0018720820953644 http://scihub22266oqcxt.onion/10.1177/0018720820953644 32960093!7586009!32960093     free     free     free Warning: file_get_contents(https://eutils.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/eutils/elink.fcgi?dbfrom=pubmed&id=32960093&cmd=llinks): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 215       Hum+Factors 2020 ; 62 (7): 1041-1060 Nephropedia Template TP {{tp|p=32960093|t=2020. Evaluating Medical Devices Remotely: Current Methods and Potential Innovations |pdf=|usr=}}{{32960093}} gab.com Text Evaluating Medical Devices Remotely: Current Methods and Potential Innovations JO: Hum Factors http://www.kidney.de/pget.php?&tw=1&pmid=32960093 #FOAvip OBJECTIVE: We 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. BACKGROUND: The 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. METHOD: We 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. RESULTS: We 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. CONCLUSION: Remote 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. Twit Text FOAVip Evaluating Medical Devices Remotely: Current Methods and Potential Innovations ????Hum Factors http://www.kidney.de/pget.php?&tw=1&pmid=32960093 #FOAvip Twit Text # Free Paper on # # # # # LINK http://www.kidney.de/pget.php?&tw=1&pmid=32960093 #FOAvip English Wikipedia <ref>{{Cite pmid|32960093}}</ref> Evaluating Medical Devices Remotely: Current Methods and Potential Innovations #MMPMID32960093 McLaughlin AC; DeLucia PR; Drews FA; Vaughn-Cooke M; Kumar A; Nesbitt RR; Cluff K Hum Factors 2020[Nov]; 62 (7): 1041-1060 PMID32960093show ga OBJECTIVE: We 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. BACKGROUND: The 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. METHOD: We 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. RESULTS: We 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. CONCLUSION: Remote 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. |*Research Design[MESH] |*Technology[MESH] |Data Collection[MESH] |Equipment Design[MESH]Evaluating Medical Devices Remotely: Current Methods and Potential Inn(epmc).pdf DeepDyve Pubget Overpricing