{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.019314641744548288, 'fraction_numerical': 0.006230529595015576, 'mean_word_length': 5.3478260869565215, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
The design and evaluation of a graphical display for laboratory data

OBJECTIVE
Advances in healthcare information technology have provided opportunities to present data in new, more effective ways. In this study, we designed a laboratory display that features small, data-dense graphics called sparklines, which have recently been promoted as effective representations of medical data but have not been well studied. The effect of this novel display on physicians' interpretation of data was investigated.


DESIGN
Twelve physicians talked aloud as they assessed laboratory data from four patients in a pediatric intensive care unit with the graph display and with a conventional table display.


MEASUREMENTS
Verbalizations were coded based on the abnormal values and trends identified for each lab variable. The correspondence of interpretations of variables in each display was evaluated, and patterns were investigated across participants. Assessment time was also analyzed.


RESULTS
Physicians completed assessments significantly faster with the graphical display (3.6 min vs 4.4 min, p=0.042). When compared across displays, 37% of interpretations did not match. Graphs were more useful when the visual cues in tables did not provide trend information, while slightly abnormal values were easier to identify with tables.


CONCLUSIONS
Data presentation format can affect how physicians interpret laboratory data. Graphic displays have several advantages over numeric displays but are not always optimal. User, task and data characteristics should be considered when designing information displays.