Evidence map›Paper›PMID 21547414›Full record

ArticleClinical orthopaedics and related research2011

Smartphone apps for orthopaedic surgeons.

Orrin I Franko

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Clinical orthopaedics and related research, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 62 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
62citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

62 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Use of the smartphone for end vertebra selection in scoliosis.Acta orthopaedica et traumatologica turcica · 2017
    Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Smartphone Applications for Otolaryngology: Head and Neck Surgery-A Recent Update.Indian journal of otolaryngology and head and neck surgery : official publication of the Association of Otolaryngologists of India · 2022
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Smartphone and medical application use among dentists in China.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2020
    Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Mobile applications in otolaryngology for patients: An update.Laryngoscope investigative otolaryngology · 2018
    Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

2 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

Orrin I FrankoDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, University of California San Diego, 200 West Arbor Drive, MC 8894, San Diego, CA 92103, USA. ofranko@ucsd.edu

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe use of smartphones and their associated applications (apps) provides new opportunities for physicians, and specifically orthopaedic surgeons, to integrate technology into clinical practice. PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was twofold: to review all apps specifically created for orthopaedic surgeons and to survey orthopaedic residents and surgeons in the United States to characterize the need for novel apps.

methodsThe five most popular smartphone app stores were searched for orthopaedic-related apps: Blackberry, iPhone, Android, Palm, and Windows. An Internet survey was sent to ACGME-accredited orthopaedic surgery departments to assess the level of smartphone use, app use, and desire for orthopaedic-related apps.

resultsThe database search revealed that iPhone and Android platforms had apps specifically created for orthopaedic surgery with a total of 61 and 13 apps, respectively. Among the apps reviewed, only one had greater than 100 reviews (mean, 27), and the majority of apps had very few reviews, including AAOS Now and AO Surgery Reference, apps published by the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons and AO Foundation, respectively. The national survey revealed that 84% of respondents (n = 476) have a smartphone, the majority (55%) have an iPhone, and that 53% of people with smartphones already use apps in clinical practice. Ninety-six percent of respondents who use apps reported they would like more orthopaedic apps and would pay an average of nearly $30 for useful apps. The four most requested categories of apps were textbook/reference, techniques/guides, OITE/board review, and billing/coding.

conclusionThe use of smartphones and apps is prevalent among orthopaedic care providers in academic centers. However, few highly ranked apps specifically related to orthopaedic surgery are available, and the types of apps available do not appear to be the categories most desired by residents and surgeons.

Indexed as

Cell PhoneComputers, HandheldMedical Informatics ApplicationsOrthopedicsData CollectionHospital Communication SystemsHumansInternetMedical Staff, Hospital

Identifiers

PMID21547414
PMCPMC3111786

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.