Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24454354›Full record

ReviewInternational journal of telemedicine and applications2013

Smartphone Medical Applications for Women's Health: What Is the Evidence-Base and Feedback?

Emma Derbyshire, Darren Dancey

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in International journal of telemedicine and applications, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 47 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
47citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
16.4field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
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

47 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 109 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Mobile health application for Thai women: investigation and model.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2022
    Article
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Emma DerbyshireSchool of Healthcare Science, John Dalton East Building, Oxford Road, Manchester M1 5GD, UK.
Darren DanceySchool of Healthcare Science, John Dalton East Building, Oxford Road, Manchester M1 5GD, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background. Smartphone medical applications have a major role to play in women's health with their roles being very broad, ranging from improving health behaviours to undertaking personalised tests. Objective(s). Using Medline, Web of Knowledge, and the PRISMA guidelines 15 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were identified, with mobile interventions being tested on 1603 females, in relation to key aspects of health. Using a similar systematic approach an iPhone database search identified 47 applications (apps) developed to improve women's health. Findings. Ten RCTs used text messaging or app interventions to support weight loss, with significant improvements being observed in eight studies. For other aspects of women's health RCTs are needed to determine possible health benefits. iPhone store data analysis identified that a substantial number of women's health apps did not have star ratings or feedback comments (68 and 49 per cent, resp.), raising concerns about their validity. Conclusion. Peer-review systems, supporting statements of evidence, or certification standards would be beneficial in maintaining the quality and credibility of future health-focused apps. Patient groups should also ideally be involved in the development and testing of mobile medical apps.

Identifiers

PMID24454354
PMCPMC3880694
OpenAlexW2073359391

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.