ArticleJournal of cancer research and clinical oncology2018
Qualitative evaluation of mobile cancer apps with particular attention to the target group, content, and advertising.
Article in Journal of cancer research and clinical oncology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 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
17 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 35 citations in OpenAlex.
- Effectiveness of eHealth interventions in long-term follow-up care for breast and gynecological cancer survivors: a systematic review.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2026Pooled it
- Mobile Apps for Oncology Health Care Professionals: Mapping and Assessment Study.JMIR mHealth and uHealth · 2026Article
- Efficacy of digital educational intervention using I-Change model in promoting preventive behaviors for cervical cancer among Iranian women: A randomized controlled trial.Health promotion perspectives · 2025Article
- Trustworthiness of Web-Based Pharmacy Apps in Pakistan Based on the Mobile App Rating Scale: Content Analysis and Quality Evaluation.JMIR mHealth and uHealth · 2025Article
- Empowering patients for biomarker-informed care: digital education to bridge HER2-low knowledge gaps in metastatic breast cancer.Frontiers in digital health · 2025Article
- Development of mobile application for cervical cancer screening in women: Protocol of a multi-phase study.Journal of education and health promotion · 2024Article
- An Evaluation of Interactive mHealth Applications for Adults Living with Cancer.Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2023Article
- Systematic Evaluation of the Behavior Change Techniques and Quality of Commercially Available Cancer Self-Management Apps.JCO oncology practice · 2023Article
- Sociodemographic Characteristics Associated With an eHealth System Designed to Reduce Depressive Symptoms Among Patients With Breast or Prostate Cancer: Prospective Study.JMIR formative research · 2022Article
- Evaluation of mobile health applications for cervical cancer in the digital marketplace.Obstetrics & gynecology science · 2022Article
- Access to internet, smartphone usage, and acceptability of mobile health technology among cancer patients.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2020Article
- Assessing Apps for Patients with Genitourinary Tumors Using the Mobile Application Rating Scale (MARS): Systematic Search in App Stores and Content Analysis.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
- Outpatient Cancer Care Delivery in the Context of E-Oncology: A French Perspective on "Cancer outside the Hospital Walls".Cancers · 2019Article
- Evaluation of Mobile Health Applications to Track Patient-Reported Outcomes for Oncology Patients: A Systematic Review.Advances in radiation oncologyArticle
- Article
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
purposeMedical apps are gaining importance rapidly. Also in the field of cancer care, apps are offered. Yet, so far little is known with respect to their quality.
methodsIn a pilot phase we developed a rating tool based on formal and content-related criteria for the assessment of cancer apps. We used this instrument on cancer apps available in the App Store (iOS) concerning breast, prostate and colorectal cancer. The results were stratified according to target group, content and advertising.
resultsWe assessed 41 mobile cancer apps. Six apps (14.63%) scored very high, fifteen apps (36.59%) high, seventeen apps (41.46%) were deficient, and three apps (7.32%) were insufficient. The largest group of apps represents those apps with the "deficient" rating. The very good to good apps had reliable sources, a concrete intent/ purpose in their app description, and a strict distinction of scientific content and advertisement. Apps with the predicates "deficient" or "insufficient" had particularly poor ratings, e.g. in the subscales "information on sources" and "data protection".
conclusionsAlmost half of the tested apps were deficient or insufficient. In order to improve safety of patients using apps, some regulation seems mandatory. Putting apps under the legislation for medical products might be one way to better regulate and control quality. Second, efforts should focus on the development of checklists that make it easier for patients to search for suitable cancer apps.
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.