Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29695374›Full record

ArticleJMIR mHealth and uHealth2018

Relevance of Trust Marks and CE Labels in German-Language Store Descriptions of Health Apps: Analysis.

Urs-Vito Albrecht, Uta Hillebrand, Ute von Jan

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR mHealth and uHealth, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing 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

19 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Proposal of a New Rating Concept for Digital Health Applications in Orthopedics and Traumatology.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022
    Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. [Mobile apps and their usage in rheumatology].Zeitschrift fur Rheumatologie · 2020
    Article
  11. Review
  12. [Unintended consequences and side effects of digital health technology: a public health perspective].Bundesgesundheitsblatt, Gesundheitsforschung, Gesundheitsschutz · 2020
    Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. 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

3 authors.

Urs-Vito Albrecht *Peter L Reichertz Institute for Medical Informatics, Hannover Medical School, Hannover, Germany.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8989-6696
Uta HillebrandPeter L Reichertz Institute for Medical Informatics, Hannover Medical School, Hannover, Germany.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9184-8426
Ute von JanPeter L Reichertz Institute for Medical Informatics, Hannover Medical School, Hannover, Germany.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9225-593X

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIn addition to mandatory CE marking ("CE" representing Conformité Européenne, with the CE marking being a symbol of free marketability in the European Economic Area) for medical devices, there are various seals, initiatives, action groups, etc, in the health app context. However, whether manufacturers use them to distinguish their apps and attach relevance to them is unclear.

objectiveThe objective was to take a snapshot of quality seals, regulatory marks, and other orientation aids available on the German app market and to determine whether manufacturers deem such labels relevant enough to apply them to their apps, namely as reflected by mentions in app description texts in a typical app store (ie, Apple's App Store).

methodsA full survey of the metadata of 103,046 apps from Apple's German App Store in the Medicine and Health & Fitness categories was carried out. For apps with German-language store descriptions (N=8767), these were automatically searched for the occurrence of relevant keywords and validated manually (N=41). In addition, the websites of various app seal providers were checked for assigned seals.

resultsFew manufacturers referenced seals in the descriptions (5/41), although this would have been expected more often based on the seals we were able to identify from the seal providers' Web pages, and there were 34 of 41 that mentioned CE status in the descriptions. Two apps referenced an app directory curated by experts; however, this is not an alternative to CE marks and seals of approval.

conclusionsCurrently, quality seals seem to be irrelevant for manufacturers. In line with regulatory requirements, mentions of medical device status are more frequent; however, neither characteristic is effective for identifying high-quality apps. To improve this situation, a possibly legally obligatory, standardized reporting system should be implemented.

Indexed as

medical device regulationmobile health appmobile phonequality assessmentquality seals

Identifiers

PMID29695374
PMCPMC5943626

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.