ArticleJournal of cancer education : the official journal of the American Association for Cancer Education2015
Smartphone Applications for the Clinical Oncologist in UK Practice.
Article in Journal of cancer education : the official journal of the American Association for Cancer Education, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Medical Prognosis of Infectious Diseases in Nursing Homes by Applying Machine Learning on Clinical Data Collected in Cloud Microservices.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021Article
- Outpatient Cancer Care Delivery in the Context of E-Oncology: A French Perspective on "Cancer outside the Hospital Walls".Cancers · 2019Article
- Expert Involvement and Adherence to Medical Evidence in Medical Mobile Phone Apps: A Systematic Review.JMIR mHealth and uHealth · 2015Review
- Optimizing cancer care through mobile health.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2015Review
- A smart application for smartphone: a proposal to reduce noise pollution for people having regular tasks.Frontiers in public health · 2014Article
- Article
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
A number of medical smartphone applications have been developed to assist clinical oncology specialists. Concerns have arisen that the information provided may not be under sufficient scrutiny. This study aims to analyse the current applications available for clinical oncologists in the UK. Applications aimed specifically at physician clinical oncologists were searched for on the major smartphone operating systems: Apple iOS; Google Android; Microsoft Windows OS; and Blackberry OS. All applications were installed and analysed. The applications were scrutinised to assess the following information: cost; whether the information included was referenced; when the information was last updated; and whether they made any reference to UK guidelines. A novel rating score based on these criteria was applied to each application. Fifty applications were identified: 24 for Apple's iOS; 23 for Google's Android; 2 for Blackberry OS; and 1 for Windows OS. The categories of applications available were: drug reference; journal reference; learning; clinical calculators; decision support; guidelines; and dictionaries. Journal reference and guideline applications scored highly on our rating system. Drug reference application costs were prohibitive. Learning tools were poorly referenced and not up-to-date. Smartphones provide easy access to information. There are numerous applications devoted to oncology physicians, many of which are free and contain referenced, up-to-date data. The cost and quality of drug reference and learning applications have significant scope for improvement. A regulatory body is needed to ensure the presence of peer-reviewed, validated applications to ensure their reliability.
Indexed as
Identifiers
24903139What 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.