Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26215371›Full record

ReviewJMIR mHealth and uHealth2015

Expert Involvement and Adherence to Medical Evidence in Medical Mobile Phone Apps: A Systematic Review.

Yousif Subhi, Sarah Hjartbro Bube, Signe Rolskov Bojsen, Ann Sofia Skou Thomsen, Lars Konge

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in JMIR mHealth and uHealth, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 55 papers, 7 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
55citing papers in PubMed, 7 pooled it
13.4field-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

55 citing papers in PubMed, 7 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 112 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Trial
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  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

5 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Yousif SubhiCentre for Clinical Education, The Capital Region of Denmark, Copenhagen, Denmark. ysubhi@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6620-5365
Sarah Hjartbro BubeORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5081-3646
Signe Rolskov BojsenORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4864-9776
Ann Sofia Skou ThomsenORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4249-581X
Lars KongeORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1258-5822
Capital Region of Denmark · DKCopenhagen University Hospital · DKGlostrup Hospital · DK

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundBoth clinicians and patients use medical mobile phone apps. Anyone can publish medical apps, which leads to contents with variable quality that may have a serious impact on human lives. We herein provide an overview of the prevalence of expert involvement in app development and whether or not app contents adhere to current medical evidence.

objectiveTo systematically review studies evaluating expert involvement or adherence of app content to medical evidence in medical mobile phone apps.

methodsWe systematically searched 3 databases (PubMed, The Cochrane Library, and EMBASE), and included studies evaluating expert involvement or adherence of app content to medical evidence in medical mobile phone apps. Two authors performed data extraction independently. Qualitative analysis of the included studies was performed.

resultsBased on inclusion criteria, 52 studies were included in this review. These studies assessed a total of 6520 apps. Studies dealt with a variety of medical specialties and topics. As much as 28 studies assessed expert involvement, which was found in 9-67% of the assessed apps. Thirty studies (including 6 studies that also assessed expert involvement) assessed adherence of app content to current medical evidence. Thirteen studies found that 10-87% of the assessed apps adhered fully to the compared evidence (published studies, recommendations, and guidelines). Seventeen studies found that none of the assessed apps (n=2237) adhered fully to the compared evidence.

conclusionsMost medical mobile phone apps lack expert involvement and do not adhere to relevant medical evidence.

Indexed as

mHealthmobile appstechnology

Identifiers

PMID26215371
PMCPMC4705370
OpenAlexW1778362155

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.