CTDSDevelopment and usability review
Clinician feedback
Early feedback on ease of use, navigation, report readability and clarity of safety messages informs ongoing CTDS development.
Preliminary usability review · n = 3. This review does not establish diagnostic accuracy, clinical safety, treatment effectiveness or validation of the motor-threshold algorithms.
Reviewers’ rTMS experience spans clinical practice, observation and patient referral.
Routine workflow
24 ratings · 8 items × 3 reviewersCaution workflow
15 ratings · 5 items × 3 reviewersSample-report review
144 ratings · 48 items × 3 reviewersOverall workflow
6 ratings · 2 items × 3 reviewersBar widths show the distribution within each section; numbers are individual item ratings. The same three reviewers contributed throughout, so these are not independent participant counts. No strongly-disagree responses were recorded. Preliminary usability feedback does not establish clinical validation.
How the review was conducted
Three psychiatrists submitted the CTDS Clinician Workflow and Case-Report Review survey on 27 October 2026. All reported being first-time CTDS users. Their TMS experience ranged from observing or referring patients to regular clinical practice.
Reviewers explored guided workflows and read sample reports using fictional information. The survey asked whether the next step was clear, information carried forward without unnecessary re-entry, entered facts were distinguishable from clinician decisions, reports were easy to scan, and outstanding review requirements were understandable.
Results reflect self-reported ratings. Task completion, time on task and clinical correctness were not independently measured by this survey.
What reviewers reported
| Section | Ratings | Strongly agree | Agree | Neutral | Disagree |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Routine workflow (8 items × 3) | 24 | 7 | 17 | 0 | 0 |
| Caution workflow (5 items × 3) | 15 | 1 | 12 | 0 | 2 |
| Sample-report review (48 items × 3) | 144 | 21 | 120 | 3 | 0 |
| Overall workflow (2 items × 3) | 6 | 3 | 3 | 0 | 0 |
These are repeated item ratings from three people, not independent participants or an accuracy score. No strongly-disagree or non-numeric responses were recorded for these rating items.
Reviewers generally rated navigation, continuity between tools and report readability positively. Feedback also identified unclear safety messaging, a need to explain uncertain findings more clearly, uncertainty about what to enter in the history field, and repeated warnings. Some concerns lacked explanatory comments and need follow-up before a specific design change can be attributed to them.
Feedback and development response
- Safety communication: make incomplete screening and outstanding clinician review explicit; distinguish review prompts from automatic medication changes or treatment exclusion.
- Diagnostic uncertainty: use “further diagnostic evaluation required” rather than leaving an unexplained “unsure” in the report.
- Repetition: present medication guidance with the consolidated safety review and reduce repeated caution paragraphs.
- History-entry guidance: a reviewer requested clearer guidance on what to include; further usability refinement is planned.
- Visual support: clearer visual status cues and optional instructional videos were suggested. Videos are not yet provided.
The original survey responses remain unchanged. Wording refinements made after this review have not yet been re-evaluated by these respondents.
Interpretation and next steps
The responses suggest that these three reviewers found the workflow broadly understandable, while identifying safety-message and report-clarity issues. The sample is small and contains limited representation of regular TMS operators. Agreement does not verify clinical decisions, device instructions, localization accuracy or MT estimates.
Next steps are to clarify the unexplained safety feedback, repeat the relevant usability tasks after revisions, and obtain broader hands-on review. Independent clinical validation remains pending.
Source: owner-supplied survey export, three responses dated 27 October 2026. Summary prepared 28 October 2026. Only aggregate results and paraphrased themes are displayed; individual responses and identities are not published.