ReviewLaryngoscope investigative otolaryngology2018
Mobile applications in otolaryngology for patients: An update.
Review in Laryngoscope investigative otolaryngology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.
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
11 citing papers in PubMed.
- Evaluating the Impact of Hearing Conditioning App on Clinician Task Load and Hearing Test Efficiency in Children.The journal of international advanced otology · 2025Trial
- Usability of a hearing test mobile app across generations.PloS one · 2025Article
- Development of a Subjective Visual Vertical Test System Using a Smartphone With Virtual Reality Goggles for Screening of Otolithic Dysfunction: Observational Study.JMIR formative research · 2024Article
- The Effectiveness of a Smartphone Application for Tinnitus Relief.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Are Mobile Applications in Laryngology Designed for All Patients?The Laryngoscope · 2023Review
- Reliability of Universal-Platform-BasedJournal of clinical medicine · 2023Article
- Chronic Tinnitus and the Positive Effects of Sound Treatment via a Smartphone App: Mixed-Design Study.JMIR mHealth and uHealth · 2022Article
- Smartphone Applications for Otolaryngology: Head and Neck Surgery-A Recent Update.Indian journal of otolaryngology and head and neck surgery : official publication of the Association of Otolaryngologists of India · 2022Article
- A State-of-Art Review of Digital Technologies for the Next Generation of Tinnitus Therapeutics.Frontiers in digital health · 2021Review
- [Computer-based auditory training for hearing rehabilitation of adult cochlear implant users].HNO · 2020Review
- Safety concerns with consumer-facing mobile health applications and their consequences: a scoping review.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveRecently smartphones and tablets have spread in developed countries, and healthcare-related apps are growing incredibly in different specialties. The aim of this study is to provide an up-to-date review of the current OtoHNS (otolaryngology-head and neck surgery) apps developed for patients.
methodsThis mobile applications review was conducted in September 2017. Relevant apps about OtoHNS were searched in the Apple Store and in the Google Play using various keywords. We included helpful apps for OtoHNS patients. Apps for medical students, physician (95 apps) and non-English apps (6 apps) were excluded.
resultsAt the end of our selection process, 216 apps have been included for mobile applications review. The number of apps published per year in OtoHNS has increased each year. The most common apps were about hearing, in particular 63 of 216 (29%) were hearing test; 75 of 216 (35%) for tinnitus treatment; 10 of 216 (5%) for sounds measurement around the patients; and 7 of 216 (3%) to treat vertigo. One hundred thirty-seven of 216 (63%) apps were free of charge. Physicians were clearly involved in the app's development in only 73 of 216 (34%) apps. One hundred sixty-three of 216 (75%) had no user ratings.
conclusionsApps are increasingly and easily accessible, although their use in clinical practice is not yet totally accepted. Our review showed that most apps have been created with no guidance from otolaryngologist. Further steps are needed to regulate apps' development. Hoping an "App Board," such as editorial board for scientific journal, to assess app quality, validity, and effectiveness before they can be fully incorporated into clinical practice and medical education. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: N/A.
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.