Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32012102›Full record

ArticleJMIR mHealth and uHealth2020

Assessment of Mobile Health Apps Using Built-In Smartphone Sensors for Diagnosis and Treatment: Systematic Survey of Apps Listed in International Curated Health App Libraries.

Clarence Baxter, Julie-Anne Carroll, Brendan Keogh, Corneel Vandelanotte

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR mHealth and uHealth, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 37 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
37citing papers in PubMed
23.2field-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

37 citing papers in PubMed, 139 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  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

4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Clarence Baxter *School of Public Health and Social Work, Faculty of Health, Queensland University of Technology, Kelvin Grove, Queensland, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-8258-4836
Julie-Anne Carroll *School of Public Health and Social Work, Faculty of Health, Queensland University of Technology, Kelvin Grove, Queensland, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-0770-6527
Brendan Keogh *Digital Media Research Centre, Creative Industries Faculty, Queensland University of Technology, Kelvin Grove, Queensland, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-4565-4641
Corneel Vandelanotte *School of Health, Medical and Applied Sciences, Central Queensland University, Rockhampton, Queensland, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-4445-8094
Queensland University of Technology · AUCentral Queensland University · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMore than a million health and well-being apps are available from the Apple and Google app stores. Some apps use built-in mobile phone sensors to generate health data. Clinicians and patients can find information regarding safe and effective mobile health (mHealth) apps in third party-curated mHealth app libraries.

objectiveThese independent Web-based repositories guide app selection from trusted lists, but do they offer apps using ubiquitous, low-cost smartphone sensors to improve health? This study aimed to identify the types of built-in mobile phone sensors used in apps listed on curated health app libraries, the range of health conditions these apps address, and the cross-platform availability of the apps.

methodsThis systematic survey reviewed three such repositories (National Health Service Apps Library, AppScript, and MyHealthApps), assessing the availability of apps using built-in mobile phone sensors for the diagnosis or treatment of health conditions.

resultsA total of 18 such apps were identified and included in this survey, representing 1.1% (8/699) to 3% (2/76) of all apps offered by the respective libraries examined. About one-third (7/18, 39%) of the identified apps offered cross-platform Apple and Android versions, with a further 50% (9/18) only dedicated to Apple and 11% (2/18) to Android. About one-fourth (4/18, 22%) of the identified apps offered dedicated diagnostic functions, with a majority featuring therapeutic (9/18, 50%) or combined functionality (5/18, 28%). Cameras, touch screens, and microphones were the most frequently used built-in sensors. Health concerns addressed by these apps included respiratory, dermatological, neurological, and anxiety conditions.

conclusionsDiligent mHealth app library curation, medical device regulation constraints, and cross-platform differences in mobile phone sensor architectures may all contribute to the observed limited availability of mHealth apps using built-in phone sensors in curated mHealth app libraries. However, more efforts are needed to increase the number of such apps on curated lists, as they offer easily accessible low-cost options to assist people in managing clinical conditions.

Indexed as

Mobile ApplicationsTelemedicineCell PhoneHumansSmartphoneState Medicineand health care evaluationconsumer health informaticsdiagnostic self evaluationhealth care accesshealth care qualityinstrumentationmedical device legislationmedical informaticsmHealthmobile appspatient-generated health datapatient participationphysician-patient relationsprescriptionsself-careself-managementsmartphonetelehealth

Identifiers

PMID32012102
PMCPMC7055743
OpenAlexW3004935188

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.