Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31599936›Full record

ArticleJournal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA2020

Safety concerns with consumer-facing mobile health applications and their consequences: a scoping review.

Saba Akbar, Enrico Coiera, Farah Magrabi

Open access · bronzeAbstract readScoping Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 107 papers, 13 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
107citing papers in PubMed, 13 pooled it
35.9field-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

107 citing papers in PubMed, 13 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 253 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. 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
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Quality Assessment of Digital Health Apps: Umbrella Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2024
    Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Pooled it
  12. Pooled it
  13. Pooled it
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

47 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

3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Saba AkbarCentre for Health Informatics, Australian Institute of Health Innovation, Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia.
Enrico CoieraCentre for Health Informatics, Australian Institute of Health Innovation, Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia.
Farah MagrabiCentre for Health Informatics, Australian Institute of Health Innovation, Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia.
Macquarie University · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo summarize the research literature about safety concerns with consumer-facing health apps and their consequences. MATERIALS AND

methodsWe searched bibliographic databases including PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, and Cochrane libraries from January 2013 to May 2019 for articles about health apps. Descriptive information about safety concerns and consequences were extracted and classified into natural categories. The review was conducted in accordance with the PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews) statement.

resultsOf the 74 studies identified, the majority were reviews of a single or a group of similar apps (n = 66, 89%), nearly half related to disease management (n = 34, 46%). A total of 80 safety concerns were identified, 67 related to the quality of information presented including incorrect or incomplete information, variation in content, and incorrect or inappropriate response to consumer needs. The remaining 13 related to app functionality including gaps in features, lack of validation for user input, delayed processing, failure to respond to health dangers, and faulty alarms. Of the 52 reports of actual or potential consequences, 5 had potential for patient harm. We also identified 66 reports about gaps in app development, including the lack of expert involvement, poor evidence base, and poor validation.

conclusionsSafety of apps is an emerging public health issue. The available evidence shows that apps pose clinical risks to consumers. Involvement of consumers, regulators, and healthcare professionals in development and testing can improve quality. Additionally, mandatory reporting of safety concerns is needed to improve outcomes.

Indexed as

Consumer Health InformationMobile ApplicationsHumansPatient SafetyPublic HealthTelemedicineconsumer health informationmHealthmobile applicationspatient safety

Identifiers

PMID31599936
PMCPMC7025360
OpenAlexW2979989194

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.