Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29788283›Full record

SynthesisJournal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA2018

Criteria for assessing the quality of mHealth apps: a systematic review.

Rasool Nouri, Sharareh R Niakan Kalhori, Marjan Ghazisaeedi, Guillaume Marchand, Mobin Yasini

Open access · bronzeAbstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 112 papers, 16 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
112citing papers in PubMed, 16 pooled it
42.7field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

112 citing papers in PubMed, 16 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 248 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Quality Assessment of Digital Health Apps: Umbrella Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2024
    Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Pooled it
  12. Pooled it
  13. Pooled it
  14. Pooled it
  15. Pooled it
  16. Pooled it
  17. Trial
  18. Trial
  19. Article
  20. Article

52 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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 1 institution in 1 country.

Rasool NouriHealth Information Management Department, School of Allied Medical Sciences, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
Sharareh R Niakan KalhoriHealth Information Management Department, School of Allied Medical Sciences, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
Marjan GhazisaeediHealth Information Management Department, School of Allied Medical Sciences, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
Guillaume MarchandResearch and Development Department, DMD Santé, Paris, France.
Mobin YasiniResearch and Development Department, DMD Santé, Paris, France.
Tehran University of Medical Sciences · IR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objective: Review the existing studies including an assessment tool/method to assess the quality of mHealth apps; extract their criteria; and provide a classification of the collected criteria. Methods: In accordance with the PRISMA statement, a literature search was conducted in MEDLINE, EMBase, ISI and Scopus for English language citations published from January 1, 2008 to December 22, 2016 for studies including tools or methods for quality assessment of mHealth apps. Two researchers screened the titles and abstracts of all retrieved citations against the inclusion and exclusion criteria. The full text of relevant papers was then individually examined by the same researchers. A senior researcher resolved eventual disagreements and confirmed the relevance of all included papers. The authors, date of publication, subject fields of target mHealth apps, development method, and assessment criteria were extracted from each paper. The extracted assessment criteria were then reviewed, compared, and classified by an expert panel of two medical informatics specialists and two health information management specialists. Results: Twenty-three papers were included in the review. Thirty-eight main classes of assessment criteria were identified. These were reorganized by expert panel into 7 main classes (Design, Information/Content, Usability, Functionality, Ethical Issues, Security and Privacy, and User-perceived value) with 37 sub-classes of criteria. Conclusions: There is a wide heterogeneity in assessment criteria for mHealth apps. It is necessary to define the exact meanings and degree of distinctness of each criterion. This will help to improve the existing tools and may lead to achieve a better comprehensive mHealth app assessment tool.

Indexed as

Evaluation Studies as TopicHumansMobile ApplicationsTelemedicine

Identifiers

PMID29788283
PMCPMC7646896
OpenAlexW2803669305

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.