SynthesisPloS one2015
mHealth in Urology: A Review of Experts' Involvement in App Development.
Synthesis in PloS one, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 28 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
28 citing papers in PubMed.
- Quality by design: how poor adherence to guidelines holds back urological app innovation.Journal of basic and clinical physiology and pharmacology · 2025Article
- Development of a new Peyronie's disease self-assessment screening app.Translational andrology and urology · 2024Review
- Article
- The Internet, Apps, and the Anesthesiologist.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
- Mobile health (mHealth) interventions in prostate cancer survivorship: a scoping review.Journal of cancer survivorship : research and practice · 2023Article
- The Mobile Patient Information Assistant (PIA) App during the Inpatient Surgical Hospital Stay: Evaluation of Usability and Patient Approval.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Article
- Perceptions of Older Men Using a Mobile Health App to Monitor Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms and Tamsulosin Side Effects: Mixed Methods Study.JMIR human factors · 2021Article
- Barriers to the adoption and integration of patient-facing mHealth tools in urology.Nature reviews. Urology · 2021Article
- Urology at your fingertips: the development of a urology m-learning app for medical students.Translational andrology and urology · 2021Article
- Smartphone technology and its applications in urology: a review of the literature.World journal of urology · 2020Review
- Making surgery safer in an increasingly digital world: the internet-friend or foe?World journal of urology · 2020Review
- Mobile Health in Urology: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly.Journal of clinical medicine · 2020Review
- Safety concerns with consumer-facing mobile health applications and their consequences: a scoping review.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2020Article
- Urology apps: overview of current types and use.Central European journal of urology · 2020Article
- Mobile Apps for Blood Pressure Monitoring: Systematic Search in App Stores and Content Analysis.JMIR mHealth and uHealth · 2018Article
- Development and Validation of a Multidisciplinary Mobile Care System for Patients With Advanced Gastrointestinal Cancer: Interventional Observation Study.JMIR mHealth and uHealth · 2018Article
- [A mobile app for patients suffering from kidney stones].Der Urologe. Ausg. A · 2018Article
- Medication Adherence Apps: Review and Content Analysis.JMIR mHealth and uHealth · 2018Review
- eHealth and mHealth in prostate cancer detection and active surveillance.Translational andrology and urology · 2018Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionSmartphones are increasingly playing a role in healthcare and previous studies assessing medical applications (apps) have raised concerns about lack of expert involvement and low content accuracy. However, there are no such studies in Urology. We reviewed Urology apps with the aim of assessing the level of participation of healthcare professionals (HCP) and scientific Urology associations in their development. MATERIAL AND
methodsA systematic search was performed on PubMed, Apple's App Store and Google's Play Store, for Urology apps, available in English. Apps were reviewed by three graders to determine the app's platform, target customer, developer, app type, app category, price and the participation of a HCP or a scientific Urology association in the development.
resultsThe search yielded 372 apps, of which 150 were specific for Urology. A fifth of all apps had no HCP involvement (20.7%) and only a third had been developed with a scientific Urology association (34.7%). The lowest percentage of HCP (13.4%) and urological association (1.9%) involvement was in apps designed for the general population. Furthermore, there was no contribution from an Urology society in "Electronic Medical Record" nor in "Patient Information" apps. A limitation of the study is that only Android and iOS apps were reviewed.
conclusionsDespite the increasing Mobile Health (mHealth) market, this is the first study that demonstrates the lack of expert participation in the design of Urology apps, particularly in apps designed for the general public. Until clear regulation is enforced, the urological community should help regulate app development. Maintaining a register of certified apps or issuing an official scientific seal of approval could improve overall app quality. We propose that urologists become stakeholders in mHealth, shaping future app design and promoting peer-review app validation.
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.