ArticleJournal of cancer education : the official journal of the American Association for Cancer Education2019
Development of a Rating Tool for Mobile Cancer Apps: Information Analysis and Formal and Content-Related Evaluation of Selected Cancer Apps.
Article in Journal of cancer education : the official journal of the American Association for Cancer Education, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 19 citations in OpenAlex.
- Measuring the Quality of Clinical Skills Mobile Apps for Student Learning: Systematic Search, Analysis, and Comparison of Two Measurement Scales.JMIR mHealth and uHealth · 2021Pooled it
- Mobile Apps for Oncology Health Care Professionals: Mapping and Assessment Study.JMIR mHealth and uHealth · 2026Article
- Translation and validation of the traditional Chinese Mobile App Rating Scale (MARS-TW) for evaluating mHealth apps.mHealth · 2025Article
- The quality of German - language patient decision aids for oncological patients on the internet.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2023Article
- Systematic Evaluation of the Behavior Change Techniques and Quality of Commercially Available Cancer Self-Management Apps.JCO oncology practice · 2023Article
- Mobile health applications for pregnancy in Iran: Current state investigation.Journal of education and health promotion · 2022Article
- A Tool for Rating the Value of Health Education Mobile Apps to Enhance Student Learning (MARuL): Development and Usability Study.JMIR mHealth and uHealth · 2020Article
- Patient information, communication and competence empowerment in oncology (PIKKO) - evaluation of a supportive care intervention for overall oncological patients. Study protocol of a non-randomized controlled trial.BMC medical research methodology · 2020Article
- Quality Principles of App Description Texts and Their Significance in Deciding to Use Health Apps as Assessed by Medical Students: Survey Study.JMIR mHealth and uHealth · 2019Article
- Qualitative evaluation of mobile cancer apps with particular attention to the target group, content, and advertising.Journal of cancer research and clinical oncology · 2018Article
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 at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Mobile apps are offered in large numbers and have different qualities. The aim of this article was to develop a rating tool based on formal and content-related criteria for the assessment of cancer apps and to test its applicability on apps. After a thorough analysis of the literature, we developed a specific rating tool for cancer apps based on the MARS (mobile app rating system) and a rating tool for cancer websites. This instrument was applied to apps freely available in stores and focusing on some cancer topic. Ten apps were rated on the basis of 22 criteria. Sixty percent of the apps (6/10) were rated poor and insufficient. The rating by different scientists was homogenous. The good apps had reliable sources were regularly updated and had a concrete intent/purpose in their app description. In contrast, the apps that were rated poor had no distinction of scientific content and advertisement. In some cases, there was no imprint to identify the provider. As apps of poor quality can give misinformation and lead to wrong treatment decisions, efforts have to be made to increase usage of high-quality apps. Certification would help cancer patients to identify reliable apps, yet acceptance of a certification system must be backed up.
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.