Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31803083›Full record

ReviewFrontiers in psychiatry2019

The Digital Psychiatrist: In Search of Evidence-Based Apps for Anxiety and Depression.

Jamie M Marshall, Debra A Dunstan, Warren Bartik

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Frontiers in psychiatry, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 44 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
44citing papers in PubMed, 6 pooled it
10.4field-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

44 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 114 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Reducing the 'Silence Between Sessions': A Qualitative Study on Youth and Professionals' Perspectives on Digital Tools for Suicide Prevention.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2026
    Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. A shot in the dark: the impact of online visibility on the search for an effective sleep app.Journal of clinical sleep medicine : JCSM : official publication of the American Academy of Sleep Medicine · 2024
    Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  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

3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Jamie M MarshallSchool of Psychology, Faculty of Medicine and Health, University of New England, Armidale, NSW, Australia.
Debra A DunstanSchool of Psychology, Faculty of Medicine and Health, University of New England, Armidale, NSW, Australia.
Warren BartikSchool of Psychology, Faculty of Medicine and Health, University of New England, Armidale, NSW, Australia.
University of New England · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

One of the biggest growth areas in e-mental health resources has been the development and use of mobile mental health apps for smartphones and tablet devices. Such apps are being downloaded at increasing rates, but there have been questions about their efficacy and the research methodologies used to examine this. A review of the major app marketplaces, the Apple App Store and Google Play store, was conducted to locate apps claiming to offer a therapeutic treatment for depression and/or anxiety, and have research evidence for their effectiveness, according to their app store descriptions. App store descriptions were also analyzed to determine whether the app had been developed with mental health expert input; whether they had been developed in association with a government body, academic institution, or medical facility; and, whether or not they were free to download. Overall, 3.41% of apps had research to justify their claims of effectiveness, with the majority of that research undertaken by those involved in the development of the app. Other results indicated that 30.38% of shortlisted apps claimed to have expert development input; 20.48% had an affiliation with a government body, academic institution, or medical facility; and, 74.06% were free to download. Future research must consider other methodologies that may facilitate more research being completed on a greater number of apps, and future development needs to incorporate greater levels of input by mental health experts. Ways in which app stores could play a key role in encouraging more scientific research into the effectiveness of the mental health apps they sell are discussed.

Indexed as

anxietyappsapp storedepressiondigitale-mental healthmental healthmHealth

Identifiers

PMID31803083
PMCPMC6872533
OpenAlexW2982133002

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.