ReviewObesity surgery2016
Analysis of the Information Quality of Bariatric Surgery Smartphone Applications Using the Silberg Scale.
Review in Obesity surgery, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
16 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- The Utilisation of Digital Applications for Measuring Patient Outcomes Following Bariatric Surgery: a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Comparative Studies.Obesity surgery · 2024Pooled it
- The current status of stroke-related smartphone applications available to adopt in China: A systematic review study.Medicine · 2020Pooled it
- Current challenges for evaluating mobile health applications.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2023Article
- Evaluating the quality, utility, and reliability of the information in uveitis videos shared on YouTube.International ophthalmology · 2023Article
- Mobile Health Apps That Act as Surgical Preparatory Guides: App Store Search and Quality Evaluation.JMIR perioperative medicine · 2021Article
- Identification and Evaluation of Methodologies to Assess the Quality of Mobile Health Apps in High-, Low-, and Middle-Income Countries: Rapid Review.JMIR mHealth and uHealth · 2021Review
- Article
- When Public Health Research Meets Social Media: Knowledge Mapping From 2000 to 2018.Journal of medical Internet research · 2020Review
- Safety concerns with consumer-facing mobile health applications and their consequences: a scoping review.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2020Article
- An mHealth App for Decision-Making Support in Wound Dressing Selection (WounDS): Protocol for a User-Centered Feasibility Study.JMIR research protocols · 2018Article
- Current status of postnatal depression smartphone applications available on application stores: an information quality analysis.BMJ open · 2017Article
- Digital Platforms in the Assessment and Monitoring of Patients with Bipolar Disorder.Brain sciences · 2017Review
- Facilitators and barriers to using physical activity smartphone apps among Chinese patients with chronic diseases.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2017Article
- Design of a Mobile App for Nutrition Education (TreC-LifeStyle) and Formative Evaluation With Families of Overweight Children.JMIR mHealth and uHealth · 2017Article
- Enabling Psychiatrists to Explore the Full Potential of E-Health.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2015Review
- Application and effectiveness of eHealth strategies for metabolic and bariatric surgery patients: A systematic review.Digital healthReview
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
There is a paucity of literature that has evaluated the information quality of the current bariatric and obesity applications. Our objective was to evaluate the quality of currently available smartphone applications for bariatric-patient care using the Silberg scale. The two most widely used smartphone application online stores were searched in June 2014 and a total of 39 applications were evaluated. The average Silberg score of the 39 applications was 4.0 ± 1.76. The current gaps of information quality include the lack of provision of appropriate references, full disclosure of sponsorship, and accurate disclosure whether the application has been modified in the past month.
Indexed as
Identifiers
26424704What 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.