Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31456578›Full record

SynthesisJMIR mHealth and uHealth2019

Evidence on the Use of Mobile Apps During the Treatment of Breast Cancer: Systematic Review.

Flávia Oliveira Almeida Marques Cruz, Ricardo Alencar Vilela, Elaine Barros Ferreira, Nilce Santos Melo, Paula Elaine Diniz Dos Reis

Open access · goldAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in JMIR mHealth and uHealth, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 38 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
38citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
15.0field-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

38 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 71 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Evaluating a digital tool for supporting people affected by breast cancer: a prospective randomized controlled trial-the ADAPT study.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2024
    Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Evaluating the impact of Hoopicoach: A digital health tool for supporting patients through gynecologic surgery.International journal of gynaecology and obstetrics: the official organ of the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics · 2025
    Observational
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
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.

Flávia Oliveira Almeida Marques CruzSchool of Health Sciences, University of Brasilia, Brasilia, Brazil.ORCID 0000-0002-6476-5972
Ricardo Alencar VilelaSchool of Health Sciences, University of Brasilia, Brasilia, Brazil.ORCID 0000-0002-9360-3702
Elaine Barros FerreiraSchool of Health Sciences, University of Brasilia, Brasilia, Brazil.ORCID 0000-0003-0428-834X
Nilce Santos MeloSchool of Health Sciences, University of Brasilia, Brasilia, Brazil.ORCID 0000-0001-7268-485X
Paula Elaine Diniz Dos ReisSchool of Health Sciences, University of Brasilia, Brasilia, Brazil.ORCID 0000-0002-9782-3366
Universidade de Brasília · BR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundCancer is a major cause of morbidity, disability, and mortality worldwide, and breast cancer is the most common cause of death in women. Different modalities of cancer treatment can have adverse effects that reduce the quality of life of patients and lead to treatment interruptions, if not managed properly. The use of mobile technologies has brought innovative possibilities for improving health care. Mobile apps can help individuals manage their own health and well-being and may also promote healthy lifestyles and information access.

objectiveThe aim of this study was to identify available evidence on the use of mobile apps to provide information and facilitate communication regarding self-care management related to the adverse effects of toxicities owing to breast cancer therapy.

methodsThis systematic review includes studies which were identified using a search strategy adapted for each electronic database: CINAHL, Cochrane Library, LILACS, LIVIVO, PubMed, SCOPUS, and Web of Science. In addition, a gray literature search was performed using Google Scholar. All the electronic database searches were conducted on April 17, 2019. Two investigators independently reviewed the titles and abstracts of the studies identified and then read the full text of all selected papers. The quality of the included studies was analyzed by the Cochrane Collaboration Risk of Bias Tool and the Methodological Index for Non-Randomized Studies.

resultsA total of 9 studies which met the eligibility criteria-3 randomized clinical trials and 6 nonrandomized studies published in English from 2010 to 2018-were considered for this systematic review; 396 patients with breast cancer, as well as 40 experts in the medical and nursing fields, and 3 software engineers were included.

conclusionsThe evidence from the studies included in this systematic review is currently limited but suggests that mobile apps for women with breast cancer might be an acceptable information source that can improve patient well-being; they can also be used to report symptoms and adverse treatment-related effects and promote self-care. There is a need to test more evidence-based apps in future randomized clinical trials.

Indexed as

Breast NeoplasmsFemaleHumansMobile ApplicationsPatient Acceptance of Health CareQuality of Lifebreast neoplasmseducational technologyhealth educationmobile applicationsnursing carereview

Identifiers

PMID31456578
PMCPMC6734853
OpenAlexW2947382798

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.