Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31598754›Full record

ReviewWorld journal of urology2020

Smartphone technology and its applications in urology: a review of the literature.

Shlomi Tapiero, Renai Yoon, Francis Jefferson, John Sung, Luke Limfueco, Courtney Cottone, Sherry Lu, Roshan M Patel, Jaime Landman, Ralph V Clayman

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in World journal of urology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed
–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.

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

12 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Der Urologe. Ausg. A · 2021
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors.

Shlomi TapieroDepartment of Urology, University of California, Irvine, USA.
Renai YoonDepartment of Urology, University of California, Irvine, USA.
Francis JeffersonDepartment of Urology, University of California, Irvine, USA.
John SungDepartment of Urology, University of California, Irvine, USA.
Luke LimfuecoDepartment of Urology, University of California, Irvine, USA.
Courtney CottoneDepartment of Urology, University of California, Irvine, USA.
Sherry LuDepartment of Urology, University of California, Irvine, USA.
Roshan M PatelDepartment of Urology, University of California, Irvine, USA. roshanmp@uci.edu.
Jaime LandmanDepartment of Urology, University of California, Irvine, USA.
Ralph V ClaymanDepartment of Urology, University of California, Irvine, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeSmartphone technology has propelled the evolution of health-related mobile technology, referred to as mobile health (mHealth). With the rise of smartphone ownership and the growing popularity of health-related smartphone usage, mHealth offers potential benefits for both patients and health care providers. The objective of this review is to assess the current state of smartphone technology in urology.

methodsA literature search of PubMed database was conducted to identify articles reporting on smartphone technology in urology. Publications were included if they focused on smartphone mHealth technology pertinent to the field of urology or included an evaluation of urological applications in digital stores.

resultsWe identified 50 publications focused on the use of smartphones in urology. Studies were then grouped into the following categories: smartphones employing the built-in camera and light source, applications specific to prostate cancer, urolithiasis, pediatric urology, and as educational tools for urologists. In 23/50 (46%) studies, smartphone technology/intervention was compared to a control group or to standard of care. In this regard, smartphone technology did not demonstrate benefit over standard of care in 13 studies. In contrast, in 10 studies, smartphone interventions were proven beneficial over current practice.

conclusionsSmartphone technology is constantly evolving and has the potential to improve urological care and education. Of concern to consumer and urologist alike is that these downloadable programs are limited due to the accuracy of their content, risk of confidentiality breach, and the lack of central regulation and professional involvement in their development.

Indexed as

SmartphoneUrologic DiseasesHumansTelemedicineUrologyApplicationsMobile healthPediatric urologyProstate cancerSmartphoneUrolithiasis

Identifiers

PMID31598754

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.