Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30361196›Full record

ArticleJMIR mHealth and uHealth2018

Measuring the Quality of Mobile Apps for the Management of Pain: Systematic Search and Evaluation Using the Mobile App Rating Scale.

Alejandro Salazar, Helena de Sola, Inmaculada Failde, Jose Antonio Moral-Munoz

Registry-linked trialAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
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. It is linked to trial NCT04762329 (Manage My Pain at Chronic Pain Clinics in Urban, Community, and Rural Hospitals), which is not on this map. Cited by 96 papers, 14 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
96citing papers in PubMed, 14 pooled it
–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.

NCT04762329 nacompletednot on this map

Manage My Pain at Chronic Pain Clinics in Urban, Community, and Rural Hospitals

TypeinterventionalSponsorUniversity Health Network, TorontoRan2018 to 2020Enrolled246ConditionsChronic PainArmsManage My Pain (MMP) digital pain app group
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

96 citing papers in PubMed, 14 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Evaluation of temporomandibular disorder self-management apps in Australia: a systematic review to inform clinical use.International journal for quality in health care : journal of the International Society for Quality in Health Care · 2025
    Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. 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. Trial
  16. Trial
  17. Trial
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

36 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

4 authors.

Alejandro SalazarInstitute of Research and Innovation in Biomedical Sciences of the Province of Cadiz, Cádiz, Spain.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9567-462X
Helena de SolaInstitute of Research and Innovation in Biomedical Sciences of the Province of Cadiz, Cádiz, Spain.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0196-4875
Inmaculada FaildeInstitute of Research and Innovation in Biomedical Sciences of the Province of Cadiz, Cádiz, Spain.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6603-3054
Jose Antonio Moral-MunozInstitute of Research and Innovation in Biomedical Sciences of the Province of Cadiz, Cádiz, Spain.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6465-982X

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundChronic pain is a major health issue requiring an approach that not only considers medication, but also many other factors included in the biopsychosocial model of pain. New technologies, such as mobile apps, are tools to address these factors, although in many cases they lack proven quality or are not based on scientific evidence, so it is necessary to review and measure their quality.

objectiveThe aim is to evaluate and measure the quality of mobile apps for the management of pain using the Mobile App Rating Scale (MARS).

methodsThis study included 18 pain-related mobile apps from the App Store and Play Store. The MARS was administered to measure their quality. We list the scores (of each section and the final score) of every app and we report the mean score (and standard deviation) for an overall vision of the quality of the pain-related apps. We compare the section scores between the groups defined according to the tertiles via analysis of variance (ANOVA) or Kruskal-Wallis test, depending on the normality of the distribution (Shapiro-Wilk test).

resultsThe global quality ranged from 1.74 (worst app) to 4.35 (best app). Overall, the 18 apps obtained a mean score of 3.17 (SD 0.75). The best-rated sections were functionality (mean 3.92, SD 0.72), esthetics (mean 3.29, SD 1.05), and engagement (mean 2.87, SD 1.14), whereas the worst rated were app specific (mean 2.48, SD 1.00), information (mean 2.52, SD 0.82), and app subjective quality (mean 2.68, SD 1.22). The main differences between tertiles were found on app subjective quality, engagement, esthetics, and app specific.

conclusionsCurrent pain-related apps are of a certain quality mainly regarding their technical aspects, although they fail to offer information and have an impact on the user. Most apps are not based on scientific evidence, have not been rigorously tested, and the confidentiality of the information collected is not guaranteed. Future apps would need to improve these aspects and exploit the capabilities of current devices.

Indexed as

chronic painmHealthmobile appMobile App Rating Scalemobile phones

Identifiers

PMID30361196
PMCPMC6231783

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

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.