ReviewEuropean spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society2016
Smartphone apps for spinal surgery: is technology good or evil?
Review in European spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- App-Based Rehabilitation in Back Pain, a Systematic Review.Journal of personalized medicine · 2022Review
- Observation on the Effect of Intelligent Machine-Assisted Surgery and Perioperative Nursing.Journal of healthcare engineering · 2022Article
- Analysis of Secure Apps for Daily Clinical Use by German Orthopedic Surgeons: Searching for the "Needle in a Haystack".JMIR mHealth and uHealth · 2020Review
- Safety concerns with consumer-facing mobile health applications and their consequences: a scoping review.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe increased utilization of smartphones together with their downloadable applications (apps) provides opportunity for doctors, including spinal surgeons, to integrate such technology into clinical practice. However, the clinical reliability of the medical app sector remains questionable. We reviewed available apps themed specifically towards spinal surgery and related conditions and assessed the level of medical professional involvement in their design and content.
methodThe most popular smartphone app stores (Android, Apple, Blackberry, Windows, Samsung, Nokia) were searched for spinal surgery-themed apps, using the disease terms Spinal Surgery, Back Surgery, Spine, Disc Prolapse, Sciatica, Radiculopathy, Spinal Stenosis, Scoliosis, Spinal Fracture and Spondylolisthesis.
resultsA total of 78 individual spinal surgery themed apps were identified, of which there were six duplicates (N = 72). According to app store classifications, there were 57 (79 %) medical themed apps, 11 (15 %) health and fitness themed apps, 1 (1 %) business and 3 (4 %) education themed apps. Forty-five (63 %) apps were available for download free of charge. For those that charged access, the prices ranged from £0.62 to £47.99. Only 44 % of spinal surgery apps had customer satisfaction ratings and 56 % had named medical professional involvement in their development or content.
conclusionsThis is the first study to specifically address the characteristics of apps related to spinal surgery. We found that nearly half of spinal surgery apps had no named medical professional involvement, raising concerns over app content and evidence base for their use. We recommend increased regulation of spinal surgical apps to improve the accountability of app content.
Indexed as
Identifiers
25870076What 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.