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

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.

DOI: 10.2196/jmir.9.2.e8

Extracted Key Phrases

5 Figures and Tables

Cite this paper

@inproceedings{Koru2007ASO, title={A Survey of Quality Assurance Practices in Biomedical Open Source Software Projects}, author={G{\"{u}nes Koru and Khaled El Emam and Angelica Neisa and Medha Umarji and Peter Murray and R Pietrobon and C McDonald}, booktitle={Journal of medical Internet research}, year={2007} }