A survey of quality assurance practices in biomedical open source software projects

A survey of quality assurance practices in biomedical open source software projects

Show simple item record

dc.contributor.author Koru, Günes
dc.contributor.author El Emam, Khaled
dc.contributor.author Neisa, Angelica
dc.contributor.author Umarji, Medha
dc.date.accessioned 2010-05-13T19:25:10Z
dc.date.available 2010-05-13T19:25:10Z
dc.date.created 2007 en
dc.date.issued 2010-05-13T19:25:10Z
dc.identifier Journal of Medical Internet Research, 9(2), e8 en
dc.identifier.other 10.2196/jmir.9.2.e8 en
dc.identifier.uri http://hdl.handle.net/10393/12904
dc.description.abstract 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. en
dc.language.iso en en
dc.subject software reliability en
dc.subject code inspections and walkthroughs en
dc.subject software/program verification en
dc.subject software quality assurance en
dc.subject information systems en
dc.subject computational biology en
dc.subject medical informatics en
dc.subject open source software en
dc.title A survey of quality assurance practices in biomedical open source software projects en
dc.type article en

Files in this item

Files Size Format View
El_Emam_Khaled_ ... ty_assurance_practices.pdf 694.8Kb application/pdf View/Open
El_Emam_Khaled_2007_Appendix_1.pdf 83.28Kb application/pdf View/Open
El_Emam_Khaled_2007_Appendix_2.pdf 217.5Kb application/pdf View/Open
El_Emam_Khaled_2007_Appendix_3.pdf 23.06Kb application/pdf View/Open

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record


Contact information

Morisset Hall (map)
65 University Private
Ottawa ON Canada
K1N 6N5

Tel. 613-562-5800 (4563)
Fax 613-562-5195

ruor@uottawa.ca