Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30401673›Full record

ArticleJMIR mHealth and uHealth2018

Medical Correctness and User Friendliness of Available Apps for Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation: Systematic Search Combined With Guideline Adherence and Usability Evaluation.

Bibiana Metelmann, Camilla Metelmann, Louisa Schuffert, Klaus Hahnenkamp, Peter Brinkrolf

Open access · goldAbstract 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 22 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
10.7field-weighted citation impact, top 2% 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

22 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 54 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. [Education for resuscitation].Notfall & rettungsmedizin · 2021
    Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Evaluation of mHealth Applications Related to Cardiovascular Diseases: a Systematic Review.Acta informatica medica : AIM : journal of the Society for Medical Informatics of Bosnia & Herzegovina : casopis Drustva za medicinsku informatiku BiH · 2020
    Review
  19. Article
  20. 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

5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Bibiana MetelmannDepartment of Anaesthesiology, University Medicine Greifswald, Greifswald, Germany.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2090-7358
Camilla MetelmannDepartment of Anaesthesiology, University Medicine Greifswald, Greifswald, Germany.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6145-9021
Louisa SchuffertDepartment of Anaesthesiology, University Medicine Greifswald, Greifswald, Germany.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8191-8777
Klaus HahnenkampDepartment of Anaesthesiology, University Medicine Greifswald, Greifswald, Germany.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2905-0362
Peter BrinkrolfDepartment of Anaesthesiology, University Medicine Greifswald, Greifswald, Germany.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6530-0923
Universitätsmedizin Greifswald · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIn case of a cardiac arrest, start of cardiopulmonary resuscitation by a bystander before the arrival of the emergency personnel increases the probability of survival. However, the steps of high-quality resuscitation are not known by every bystander or might be forgotten in this complex and time-critical situation. Mobile phone apps offering real-time step-by-step instructions might be a valuable source of information.

objectiveThe aim of this study was to examine mobile phone apps offering real-time instructions in German or English in case of a cardiac arrest, to evaluate their adherence to current resuscitation guidelines, and to test their usability.

methodsOur 3-step approach combines a systematic review of currently available apps guiding a medical layperson through a resuscitation situation, an adherence testing to medical guidelines, and a usability evaluation of the determined apps. The systematic review followed an adapted preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses flow diagram, the guideline adherence was tested by applying a conformity checklist, and the usability was evaluated by a group of mobile phone frequent users and emergency physicians with the system usability scale (SUS) tool.

resultsThe structured search in Google Play Store and Apple App Store resulted in 3890 hits. After removing redundant ones, 2640 hits were checked for fulfilling the inclusion criteria. As a result, 34 apps meeting all inclusion criteria were identified. These included apps were analyzed to determine medical accuracy as defined by the European Resuscitation Council's guidelines. Only 5 out of 34 apps (15%, 5/34) fulfilled all criteria chosen to determine guideline adherence. All other apps provided no or wrong information on at least one relevant topic. The usability of 3 apps was evaluated by 10 mobile phone frequent users and 9 emergency physicians. Of these 3 apps, solely the app "HELP Notfall" (median=87.5) was ranked with an SUS score above the published average of 68. This app was rated significantly superior to "HAMBURG SCHOCKT" (median=55; asymptotic Wilcoxon test: z=-3.63, P<.01, n=19) and "Mein DRK" (median=32.5; asymptotic Wilcoxon test: z=-3.83, P<.01, n=19).

conclusionsImplementing a systematic quality control for health-related apps should be enforced to ensure that all products provide medically accurate content and sufficient usability in complex situations. This is of exceptional importance for apps dealing with the treatment of life-threatening events such as cardiac arrest.

Indexed as

guidelineshealth care information systemshealth informaticsmHealthmobile phonesresuscitationreview

Identifiers

PMID30401673
PMCPMC6246966
OpenAlexW2900224654

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.