Presentation of clinical laboratory results: an experimental comparison of four visualization techniques

Abstract

ObjectiveTo evaluate how clinical chemistry test results were assessed by volunteers when presented with four different visualization techniques.Materials and methodsA total of 20 medical students reviewed quantitative test results from 4 patients using 4 different visualization techniques in a balanced, crossover experiment. The laboratory data represented relevant patient categories, including simple, emergency, chronic and complex patients. Participants answered questions about trend, overall levels and covariation of test results. Answers and assessment times were recorded and participants were interviewed on their preference of visualization technique.ResultsAssessment of results and the time used varied between visualization techniques. With sparklines and relative multigraphs participants made faster assessments. With relative multigraphs participants identified more covarying test results. With absolute multigraphs participants found more trends. With sparklines participants more often assessed laboratory results to be within reference ranges. Different visualization techniques were preferred for the four different patient categories. No participant preferred absolute multigraphs for any patient.DiscussionAssessments of clinical chemistry test results were influenced by how they were presented. Importantly though, this association depended on the complexity of the result sets, and none of the visualization techniques appeared to be ideal in all settings.ConclusionsSparklines and relative multigraphs seem to be favorable techniques for presenting complex long-term clinical chemistry test results, while tables seem to suffice for simpler result sets.

Methods for Patient-Centered Interface Design of Test Result Display in Online Portals

“…Though there has been mention of the importance for user-centered design when developing patient-facing applications within EHRs [11] (such as patient portals), few studies have managed to carry-out the user-centered design process [12] in its entirety. The majority of studies on patient-centered design have explored patients’ information needs when interpreting their test results and how appropriate informatics tools can improve patient comprehension of health concepts [1314151617]. However, few published studies have attempted to take the next steps to use these information requirements to propose new designs for patient-facing interfaces or tools that promote patients’ comprehension of test results and to test these interfaces with patients [16].…”

Estimating personalized risk ranking using laboratory test and medical knowledge (UMLS)

“…In a study done by Torsvik et al [4], it was observed that alternative visualizations of laboratory test reports helped clinicians in few special cases. However, it was also observed that these techniques are not ideal in general scenarios.…”

Visualization methods for assisting detection of cardiovascular neuropathy

“…Visualization is a function of available diagnostic trends and aesthetics, which requires transposition from one or many data sources, and combines disparate data into a workable presentation [2]. Multigraphs, sparklines or box plots are some approaches, which allow representation of co-varying features while showing normal ranges for test results [3]. In clinical practice, new results from many sources are generated systematically over time, depending on the patient and treatment protocol, and require correct interpretation and follow-up.…”