Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25099695›Full record

ReviewJMIR mHealth and uHealth2014

Comparison of mobile apps for the leading causes of death among different income zones: a review of the literature and app stores.

Borja Martínez-Pérez, Isabel de la Torre-Díez, Miguel López-Coronado, Beatriz Sainz-De-Abajo

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in JMIR mHealth and uHealth, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 26 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
26citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
19.3field-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

26 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 53 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Cost-utility and cost-effectiveness studies of telemedicine, electronic, and mobile health systems in the literature: a systematic review.Telemedicine journal and e-health : the official journal of the American Telemedicine Association · 2015
    Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. A mobile system for the improvement of heart failure management: Evaluation of a prototype.AMIA ... Annual Symposium proceedings. AMIA Symposium · 2017
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Review
  19. Review
  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

4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Borja Martínez-PérezUniversity of Valladolid, Department of Signal Theory and Communications, and Telematics Engineering, University of Valladolid, Valladolid, Spain. borja.martinez@uva.es.
Isabel de la Torre-Díez
Miguel López-Coronado
Beatriz Sainz-De-Abajo
Universidad de Valladolid · ES

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe advances achieved in technology, medicine, and communications in the past decades have created an excellent scenario for the improvement and expansion of eHeath and mHealth in particular. Mobile phones, smartphones, and tablets are exceptional means for the application of mobile health, especially for those diseases and health conditions that are the deadliest worldwide.

objectiveThe main aim of this paper was to compare the amount of research and the number of mobile apps dedicated to the diseases and conditions that are the leading causes of death according to the World Health Organization grouped by different income regions. These diseases and conditions were ischemic heart disease; stroke and other cerebrovascular diseases; lower respiratory infections; chronic obstructive pulmonary disease; diarrheal diseases; HIV/AIDS; trachea, bronchus, and lung cancers; malaria; and Alzheimer disease and other dementias.

methodsTwo reviews were conducted. In the first, the systems IEEE Xplore, Scopus, Web of Knowledge, and PubMed were used to perform a literature review of applications related to the mentioned diseases. The second was developed in the currently most important mobile phone apps stores: Google play, iTunes, BlackBerry World, and Windows Phone Apps+Games.

resultsSearch queries up to June 2013 located 371 papers and 557 apps related to the leading causes of death, and the following findings were obtained. Alzheimer disease and other dementias are included in the diseases with more apps, although it is not among the top 10 causes of death worldwide, whereas lower respiratory infections, the third leading cause of death, is one of the less researched and with fewer apps. Two diseases that are the first and second of low-income countries (lower respiratory infections and diarrheal diseases) have very little research and few commercial applications. HIV/AIDS, in the top 6 of low-income and middle-income zones, is one of the diseases with more research and applications, although it is not in the top 10 in high-income countries. Trachea, bronchus, and lung cancers are the third cause of death in high-income countries but are one of the least researched diseases with regard to apps.

conclusionsConcerning mobile apps, there is more work done in the commercial field than in the research field, although the distribution among the diseases is similar in both fields. In general, apps for common diseases of low- and middle-income countries are not as abundant as those for typical diseases of developed countries. Nevertheless, there are some exceptions such as HIV/AIDS, due to its important social conscience; and trachea, bronchus and lung cancers, which was totally unexpected.

Indexed as

appsdifferent income zonesleading causes of deathmobile appsWorld Health Organization (WHO)

Identifiers

PMID25099695
PMCPMC4114467
OpenAlexW2126256481

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.