In the past years, many new explanation methods have been proposed to achieve interpretability of machine learning predictions. However, the utility of these methods in practical applications has not been researched extensively. In this paper we present the results of a human-grounded evaluation of SHAP, an explanation method that has been well-received in the XAI and related communities. In particular, we study whether this local model-agnostic explanation method can be useful for real human domain experts to assess the correctness of positive predictions, i.e. alerts generated by a classifier. We performed experimentation with three different groups of participants (159 in total), who had basic knowledge of explainable machine learning. We performed a qualitative analysis of recorded reflections of experiment participants performing alert processing with and without SHAP information. The results suggest that the SHAP explanations do impact the decision-making process, although the model's confidence score remains to be a leading source of evidence. We statistically test whether there is a significant difference in task utility metrics between tasks for which an explanation was available and tasks in which it was not provided. As opposed to common intuitions, we did not find a significant difference in alert processing performance when a SHAP explanation is available compared to when it is not.