Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28615154›Full record

ArticleJMIR mHealth and uHealth2017

Mobile Apps for Eye Care in Canada: An Analysis of the iTunes Store.

Alexander Rodin, Aviv Shachak, Aaron Miller, Vladimir Akopyan, Nataliya Semenova

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR mHealth and uHealth, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
3.9field-weighted citation impact, top 6% 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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 19 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Smart phone apps every ophthalmologist should know about.International journal of ophthalmology · 2020
    Review
  8. Review
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 2 countries.

Alexander RodinTorontoEyeExam.com, Oakville, ON, Canada.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4962-743X
Aviv ShachakInstitute of Health Policy, Management & Evaluation and The Faculty of Information, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1166-609X
Aaron MillerELLICSR Health, Wellness & Cancer Survivorship Centre, Toronto General Hospital, University Health Network, Toronto, ON, Canada.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5815-3315
Vladimir AkopyanDepartment of Ophthalmology, Faculty of Fundamental Medicine, Lomonosov Moscow State University, Moscow, Russian Federation.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0481-3642
Nataliya SemenovaDepartment of Ophthalmology, Faculty of Fundamental Medicine, Lomonosov Moscow State University, Moscow, Russian Federation.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7928-5410
Lomonosov Moscow State University · RUUniversity Health Network · CAUniversity of Toronto · CA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMobile phone screens can facilitate stimulation to various components of the visual system and many mobile apps are accepted as a means of providing clinical assessments for the oculo-visual system. Although many of these apps are intended for use in clinical settings, there is a growing number of apps in eye care developed for self-tests and eye exercises for lay people. These and other features, however, have not yet been well described.

objectiveOur objective was to identify, describe, and categorize mobile apps related to eye care that are available to users in the Canadian iTunes market.

methodsWe conducted an extensive search of the Apple iTunes Store for apps related to eye care. We used the terms "eye," "eye care," "vision," and "eye test" and included apps that are targeted at both lay people and medical professionals. We excluded apps whose primary function is not related to eye care. Eligible apps were categorized by primary purpose, based on how they were described by their developers in the iTunes Store.

resultsOur search yielded 10,657 apps, of which 427 met our inclusion criteria. After removing duplicates, 355 unique apps were subject to further review. We assigned the eligible apps to three distinct categories: 39/355 apps (11.0%) were intended for use by medical professionals, 236 apps (66.5%, 236/355) were intended for use by lay people, and 80 apps (22.5%, 80/355) were intended for marketing eye care and eye-care products. We identified 9 subcategories of apps based on the descriptions of their primary functions. Apps for medical professionals fell into three subcategories: clinical calculators (n=6), clinical diagnostic tools (n=18), and education and networking apps for professionals (n=15). Apps for lay people fell into four subcategories: self-testing (n=153), eye exercises (n=30), patient tools and low vision aids (n=35), and apps for patient education (n=18). Mixed-use apps (n=80) were placed into two subcategories: marketing of individual practitioners or eye-care products (n=72) and marketing of multiple eye-care products or professional services.

conclusionsThe most extensive subcategory pertaining to eye care consisted of apps for use by lay people, especially for conducting self-tests (n=236). This study revealed a previously uncharacterized category of apps intended for use by doctors and patients, of which the primary goal is marketing of eye-care services and products (n=80).

Indexed as

mobile applicationsmobile phoneophthalmologyoptometry

Identifiers

PMID28615154
PMCPMC5489706
OpenAlexW2626874461

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.