Cargando…

A Survey of Quality Assurance Practices in Biomedical Open Source Software Projects

BACKGROUND: Open source (OS) software is continuously gaining recognition and use in the biomedical domain, for example, in health informatics and bioinformatics. OBJECTIVES: Given the mission critical nature of applications in this domain and their potential impact on patient safety, it is importan...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Koru, Günes, El Emam, Khaled, Neisa, Angelica, Umarji, Medha
Formato: Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Gunther Eysenbach 2007
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1874720/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17513286
http://dx.doi.org/10.2196/jmir.9.2.e8
_version_ 1782133505035075584
author Koru, Günes
El Emam, Khaled
Neisa, Angelica
Umarji, Medha
author_facet Koru, Günes
El Emam, Khaled
Neisa, Angelica
Umarji, Medha
author_sort Koru, Günes
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Open source (OS) software is continuously gaining recognition and use in the biomedical domain, for example, in health informatics and bioinformatics. OBJECTIVES: Given the mission critical nature of applications in this domain and their potential impact on patient safety, it is important to understand to what degree and how effectively biomedical OS developers perform standard quality assurance (QA) activities such as peer reviews and testing. This would allow the users of biomedical OS software to better understand the quality risks, if any, and the developers to identify process improvement opportunities to produce higher quality software. METHODS: A survey of developers working on biomedical OS projects was conducted to examine the QA activities that are performed. We took a descriptive approach to summarize the implementation of QA activities and then examined some of the factors that may be related to the implementation of such practices. RESULTS: Our descriptive results show that 63% (95% CI, 54-72) of projects did not include peer reviews in their development process, while 82% (95% CI, 75-89) did include testing. Approximately 74% (95% CI, 67-81) of developers did not have a background in computing, 80% (95% CI, 74-87) were paid for their contributions to the project, and 52% (95% CI, 43-60) had PhDs. A multivariate logistic regression model to predict the implementation of peer reviews was not significant (likelihood ratio test = 16.86, 9 df, P = .051) and neither was a model to predict the implementation of testing (likelihood ratio test = 3.34, 9 df, P = .95). CONCLUSIONS: Less attention is paid to peer review than testing. However, the former is a complementary, and necessary, QA practice rather than an alternative. Therefore, one can argue that there are quality risks, at least at this point in time, in transitioning biomedical OS software into any critical settings that may have operational, financial, or safety implications. Developers of biomedical OS applications should invest more effort in implementing systemic peer review practices throughout the development and maintenance processes.
format Text
id pubmed-1874720
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2007
publisher Gunther Eysenbach
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-18747202007-05-22 A Survey of Quality Assurance Practices in Biomedical Open Source Software Projects Koru, Günes El Emam, Khaled Neisa, Angelica Umarji, Medha J Med Internet Res Original Paper BACKGROUND: Open source (OS) software is continuously gaining recognition and use in the biomedical domain, for example, in health informatics and bioinformatics. OBJECTIVES: Given the mission critical nature of applications in this domain and their potential impact on patient safety, it is important to understand to what degree and how effectively biomedical OS developers perform standard quality assurance (QA) activities such as peer reviews and testing. This would allow the users of biomedical OS software to better understand the quality risks, if any, and the developers to identify process improvement opportunities to produce higher quality software. METHODS: A survey of developers working on biomedical OS projects was conducted to examine the QA activities that are performed. We took a descriptive approach to summarize the implementation of QA activities and then examined some of the factors that may be related to the implementation of such practices. RESULTS: Our descriptive results show that 63% (95% CI, 54-72) of projects did not include peer reviews in their development process, while 82% (95% CI, 75-89) did include testing. Approximately 74% (95% CI, 67-81) of developers did not have a background in computing, 80% (95% CI, 74-87) were paid for their contributions to the project, and 52% (95% CI, 43-60) had PhDs. A multivariate logistic regression model to predict the implementation of peer reviews was not significant (likelihood ratio test = 16.86, 9 df, P = .051) and neither was a model to predict the implementation of testing (likelihood ratio test = 3.34, 9 df, P = .95). CONCLUSIONS: Less attention is paid to peer review than testing. However, the former is a complementary, and necessary, QA practice rather than an alternative. Therefore, one can argue that there are quality risks, at least at this point in time, in transitioning biomedical OS software into any critical settings that may have operational, financial, or safety implications. Developers of biomedical OS applications should invest more effort in implementing systemic peer review practices throughout the development and maintenance processes. Gunther Eysenbach 2007-05-07 /pmc/articles/PMC1874720/ /pubmed/17513286 http://dx.doi.org/10.2196/jmir.9.2.e8 Text en © Günes Koru, Khaled El Emam, Angelica Neisa, Medha Umarji. Originally published in the Journal of Medical Internet Research (http://www.jmir.org, 07.05.2007). Except where otherwise noted, articles published in the Journal of Medical Internet Research are distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://www.creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, including full bibliographic details and the URL (see "please cite as" above), and this statement is included.
spellingShingle Original Paper
Koru, Günes
El Emam, Khaled
Neisa, Angelica
Umarji, Medha
A Survey of Quality Assurance Practices in Biomedical Open Source Software Projects
title A Survey of Quality Assurance Practices in Biomedical Open Source Software Projects
title_full A Survey of Quality Assurance Practices in Biomedical Open Source Software Projects
title_fullStr A Survey of Quality Assurance Practices in Biomedical Open Source Software Projects
title_full_unstemmed A Survey of Quality Assurance Practices in Biomedical Open Source Software Projects
title_short A Survey of Quality Assurance Practices in Biomedical Open Source Software Projects
title_sort survey of quality assurance practices in biomedical open source software projects
topic Original Paper
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1874720/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17513286
http://dx.doi.org/10.2196/jmir.9.2.e8
work_keys_str_mv AT korugunes asurveyofqualityassurancepracticesinbiomedicalopensourcesoftwareprojects
AT elemamkhaled asurveyofqualityassurancepracticesinbiomedicalopensourcesoftwareprojects
AT neisaangelica asurveyofqualityassurancepracticesinbiomedicalopensourcesoftwareprojects
AT umarjimedha asurveyofqualityassurancepracticesinbiomedicalopensourcesoftwareprojects
AT korugunes surveyofqualityassurancepracticesinbiomedicalopensourcesoftwareprojects
AT elemamkhaled surveyofqualityassurancepracticesinbiomedicalopensourcesoftwareprojects
AT neisaangelica surveyofqualityassurancepracticesinbiomedicalopensourcesoftwareprojects
AT umarjimedha surveyofqualityassurancepracticesinbiomedicalopensourcesoftwareprojects