Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25223398›Full record

ArticleJournal of medical Internet research2014

mHealth and mobile medical Apps: a framework to assess risk and promote safer use.

Thomas Lorchan Lewis, Jeremy C Wyatt

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article 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. Cited by 114 papers, 11 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
114citing papers in PubMed, 11 pooled it
–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

114 citing papers in PubMed, 11 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Evaluation of temporomandibular disorder self-management apps in Australia: a systematic review to inform clinical use.International journal for quality in health care : journal of the International Society for Quality in Health Care · 2025
    Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Pooled it
  12. Trial
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

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

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.

Thomas Lorchan LewisWarwick Medical School, University of Warwick, Coventry, United Kingdom. tlewis@doctors.org.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4167-7427
Jeremy C WyattORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7008-1473

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The use of mobile medical apps by clinicians and others has grown considerably since the introduction of mobile phones. Medical apps offer clinicians the ability to access medical knowledge and patient data at the point of care, but several studies have highlighted apps that could compromise patient safety and are potentially dangerous. This article identifies a range of different kinds of risks that medical apps can contribute to and important contextual variables that can modify these risks. We have also developed a simple generic risk framework that app users, developers, and other stakeholders can use to assess the likely risks posed by a specific app in a specific context. This should help app commissioners, developers, and users to manage risks and improve patient safety.

Indexed as

Mobile ApplicationsHumansRiskRisk AssessmentSafetyTelemedicinemedical appmedical informatics applicationsmHealthmobile healthmobile phonepatient safetyrisk assessmentsmartphone

Identifiers

PMID25223398
PMCPMC4180335

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.