SynthesisJournal of medical Internet research2014
Mobile applications for diabetics: a systematic review and expert-based usability evaluation considering the special requirements of diabetes patients age 50 years or older.
Synthesis in Journal of medical Internet research, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT03728790 (A Remote Postpartum), which is not on this map. Cited by 182 papers, 21 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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.
A Remote Postpartum (PP) Blood Pressure Surveillance and Reminder System for Hypertensive Disorders of Pregnancy: A Randomized Clinical Trial
Who cites it
182 citing papers in PubMed, 21 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- What are the perceptions and experiences of adults using mobile applications for self-management in diabetes? A systematic review.BMJ open · 2025Pooled it
- Smartphone Apps for Domestic Violence Prevention: A Systematic Review.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2023Pooled it
- Effect of smartphone apps on glycemic control in young patients with type 1 diabetes: A meta-analysis.Frontiers in public health · 2023Pooled it
- Barriers to and Facilitators of Using eHealth to Support Gestational Diabetes Mellitus Self-management: Systematic Literature Review of Perceptions of Health Care Professionals and Women With Gestational Diabetes Mellitus.Journal of medical Internet research · 2022Pooled it
- Systematic review of applied usability metrics within usability evaluation methods for hospital electronic healthcare record systems: Metrics and Evaluation Methods for eHealth Systems.Journal of evaluation in clinical practice · 2021Pooled it
- Mobile Apps to Improve Medication Adherence in Cardiovascular Disease: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.Journal of medical Internet research · 2021Pooled it
- Effectiveness of Mobile Apps to Promote Health and Manage Disease: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.JMIR mHealth and uHealth · 2021Pooled it
- How patient-generated health data and patient-reported outcomes affect patient-clinician relationships: A systematic review.Health informatics journal · 2020Pooled it
- Applying the Electronic Health Literacy Lens: Systematic Review of Electronic Health Interventions Targeted at Socially Disadvantaged Groups.Journal of medical Internet research · 2020Pooled it
- Using the RE-AIM framework to evaluate internal and external validity of mobile phone-based interventions in diabetes self-management education and support.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2020Pooled it
- Effectiveness of Mobile Health Interventions on Diabetes and Obesity Treatment and Management: Systematic Review of Systematic Reviews.JMIR mHealth and uHealth · 2020Pooled it
- Usability Evaluations of Mobile Mental Health Technologies: Systematic Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2020Pooled it
- Characteristics and quality of genetics and genomics mobile apps: a systematic review.European journal of human genetics : EJHG · 2019Pooled it
- Evaluation of Self-Management Support Functions in Apps for People With Persistent Pain: Systematic Review.JMIR mHealth and uHealth · 2019Pooled it
- Research-Tested Mobile Apps for Breast Cancer Care: Systematic Review.JMIR mHealth and uHealth · 2019Pooled it
- The App Behavior Change Scale: Creation of a Scale to Assess the Potential of Apps to Promote Behavior Change.JMIR mHealth and uHealth · 2019Pooled it
- The Efficacy of Mobile Phone Apps for Lifestyle Modification in Diabetes: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.JMIR mHealth and uHealth · 2019Pooled it
- Barriers to Remote Health Interventions for Type 2 Diabetes: A Systematic Review and Proposed Classification Scheme.Journal of medical Internet research · 2017Pooled it
- The role of interdisciplinary research team in the impact of health apps in health and computer science publications: a systematic review.Biomedical engineering online · 2016Pooled it
- T2DM Self-Management via Smartphone Applications: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.PloS one · 2016Pooled it
122 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundA multitude of mhealth (mobile health) apps have been developed in recent years to support effective self-management of patients with diabetes mellitus type 1 or 2.
objectiveWe carried out a systematic review of all currently available diabetes apps for the operating systems iOS and Android. We considered the number of newly released diabetes apps, range of functions, target user groups, languages, acquisition costs, user ratings, available interfaces, and the connection between acquisition costs and user ratings. Additionally, we examined whether the available applications serve the special needs of diabetes patients aged 50 or older by performing an expert-based usability evaluation.
methodsWe identified relevant keywords, comparative categories, and their specifications. Subsequently, we performed the app review based on the information given in the Google Play Store, the Apple App Store, and the apps themselves. In addition, we carried out an expert-based usability evaluation based on a representative 10% sample of diabetes apps.
resultsIn total, we analyzed 656 apps finding that 355 (54.1%) offered just one function and 348 (53.0%) provided a documentation function. The dominating app language was English (85.4%, 560/656), patients represented the main user group (96.0%, 630/656), and the analysis of the costs revealed a trend toward free apps (53.7%, 352/656). The median price of paid apps was €1.90. The average user rating was 3.6 stars (maximum 5). Our analyses indicated no clear differences in the user rating between free and paid apps. Only 30 (4.6%) of the 656 available diabetes apps offered an interface to a measurement device. We evaluated 66 apps within the usability evaluation. On average, apps were rated best regarding the criterion "comprehensibility" (4.0 out of 5.0), while showing a lack of "fault tolerance" (2.8 out of 5.0). Of the 66 apps, 48 (72.7%) offered the ability to read the screen content aloud. The number of functions was significantly negative correlated with usability. The presence of documentation and analysis functions reduced the usability score significantly by 0.36 and 0.21 points.
conclusionsA vast number of diabetes apps already exist, but the majority offer similar functionalities and combine only one to two functions in one app. Patients and physicians alike should be involved in the app development process to a greater extent. We expect that the data transmission of health parameters to physicians will gain more importance in future applications. The usability of diabetes apps for patients aged 50 or older was moderate to good. But this result applied mainly to apps offering a small range of functions. Multifunctional apps performed considerably worse in terms of usability. Moreover, the presence of a documentation or analysis function resulted in significantly lower usability scores. The operability of accessibility features for diabetes apps was quite limited, except for the feature "screen reader".
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.