Table 6 Section 1 of the survey: questions related to the understanding of the objective and use of the tool, and the percentages obtained for each type of answer
From: Synthesizing evidence from clinical trials with dynamic interactive argument trees
Questions | %S-1 | %S-2 | %S-3 | %S-4 | %S-5 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1. The motivation and goals behind the development of the tool are clear to me. | 0.00 | 5.88 | 5.88 | 23.53 | 64.71 |
2. The explanations in the video on using the tool are understandable. | 0.00 | 5.88 | 11.76 | 11.76 | 70.59 |
3. I understand how to set a filter on the clinical studies being considered. | 5.88 | 0.00 | 5.88 | 17.65 | 70.59 |
4. I understand what setting a filter does. | 5.88 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 23.53 | 70.59 |
5. I understand how to change the weights of the individual dimensions. | 11.76 | 5.88 | 5.88 | 23.53 | 52.94 |
6. I understand the influence of the weighting of the different dimensions (safety, efficacy) on the conclusion of the system. | 0.00 | 11.76 | 11.76 | 11.76 | 64.71 |
7. The conclusion of he system is clear and understandable. | 0.00 | 0.00 | 17.75 | 29.41 | 52.94 |
8. It is understandable how the system comes to the conclusions based on the selected clinical studies. | 0.00 | 11.76 | 23.53 | 11.76 | 52.94 |
9. It is clear how to include or exclude a study in the calculation of the conclusion. | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 41.18 | 58.82 |
10. The metadata shown for the individual studies is sufficient to assess the relevance of the study with regard to its inclusion. | 0.00 | 11.76 | 35.29 | 35.29 | 17.65 |