Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27884965›Full record

ArticleSexually transmitted infections2017

'Can you recommend any good STI apps?' A review of content, accuracy and comprehensiveness of current mobile medical applications for STIs and related genital infections.

Jo Gibbs, Voula Gkatzidou, Laura Tickle, Sarah R Manning, Tilna Tilakkumar, Kate Hone, Richard E Ashcroft, Pam Sonnenberg, S Tariq Sadiq, Claudia S Estcourt

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Sexually transmitted infections, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed
–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

15 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Safety concerns with consumer-facing mobile health applications and their consequences: a scoping review.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2020
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. 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

10 authors.

Jo GibbsResearch Department of Infection and Population Health, University College London, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-5696-0260
Voula GkatzidouDepartment of Design, Brunel University London, Uxbridge, UK.
Laura TickleBarts Sexual Health Centre, St Bartholomew's Hospital, Barts Health NHS Trust, London, UK.
Sarah R ManningBarts and the London School of Medicine and Dentistry, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK.
Tilna TilakkumarBarts and the London School of Medicine and Dentistry, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK.
Kate HoneCollege of Engineering, Design and Physical Sciences, Brunel University London, Uxbridge, UK.
Richard E AshcroftSchool of Law, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK.
Pam SonnenbergResearch Department of Infection & Population Health, University College London, London, UK.
S Tariq SadiqInstitute for Infection and Immunity, St George's, University of London, London, UK.
Claudia S EstcourtBlizard Institute, Barts and the London School of Medicine and Dentistry, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK.

Funding

Medical Research Council G0901608Wellcome Trust
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveSeeking sexual health information online is common, and provision of mobile medical applications (apps) for STIs is increasing. Young people, inherently at higher risk of STIs, are avid users of technology, and apps could be appealing sources of information. We undertook a comprehensive review of content and accuracy of apps for people seeking information about STIs.

methodsSearch of Google Play and iTunes stores using general and specific search terms for apps regarding STIs and genital infections (except HIV), testing, diagnosis and management, 10 September 2014 to 16 September 2014. We assessed eligible apps against (1) 19 modified Health on The Net (HON) Foundation principles; and (2) comprehensiveness and accuracy of information on STIs/genital infections, and their diagnosis and management, compared with corresponding National Health Service STI information webpage content.

results144/6642 apps were eligible. 57 were excluded after downloading. 87 were analysed. Only 29% of apps met ≥6 HON criteria. Content was highly variable: 34/87 (39%) covered one or two infections; 40 (46%) covered multiple STIs; 5 (6%) focused on accessing STI testing. 13 (15%) were fully, 46 (53%) mostly and 28 (32%) partially accurate. 25 (29%) contained ≥1 piece of potentially harmful information. Apps available on both iOS and Android were more accurate than single-platform apps. Only one app provided fully accurate and comprehensive information on chlamydia.

conclusionsMarked variation in content, quality and accuracy of available apps combined with the nearly one-third containing potentially harmful information risks undermining potential benefits of an e-Health approach to sexual health and well-being.

Indexed as

Self CareCell PhoneHealth Knowledge, Attitudes, PracticeHumansInformation Seeking BehaviorMobile ApplicationsPatient Education as TopicPrivacyReproducibility of ResultsRisk Reduction BehaviorSexually Transmitted DiseasesTelemedicineCOMMUNICATION TECHNOLOGIESINFORMATION TECHNOLOGYSEXUAL HEALTH

Identifiers

PMID27884965
PMCPMC5520270

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.