Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32047860›Full record

ReviewNPJ digital medicine2020

Beyond validation: getting health apps into clinical practice.

William J Gordon, Adam Landman, Haipeng Zhang, David W Bates

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in NPJ digital medicine, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 174 papers, 7 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
174citing papers in PubMed, 7 pooled it
–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

174 citing papers in PubMed, 7 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Mobile applications in radiation oncology-current choices and future potentials.Strahlentherapie und Onkologie : Organ der Deutschen Rontgengesellschaft ... [et al] · 2023
    Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Trial
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Observational
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review

114 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

4 authors.

William J Gordon1Division of General Internal Medicine and Primary Care, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, MA USA.
Adam Landman2Partners HealthCare, Somerville, MA USA.
Haipeng Zhang3Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA USA.
David W Bates1Division of General Internal Medicine and Primary Care, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, MA USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Fueled by advances in technology, increased access to smartphones, and capital investment, the number of available health "apps" has exploded in recent years. Patients use their smartphones for many things, but not as much as they might for health, especially for managing their chronic conditions. Moreover, while significant work is ongoing to develop, validate, and evaluate these apps, it is less clear how to effectively disseminate apps into routine clinical practice. We propose a framework for prescribing apps and outline the key issues that need to be addressed to enable app dissemination in clinical care. This includes: education and awareness, creating digital formularies, workflow and EHR integration, payment models, and patient/provider support. As work in digital health continues to expand, integrating health apps into clinical care delivery will be critical if digital health is to achieve its potential.

Indexed as

Diagnostic markersHealth servicesSigns and symptoms

Identifiers

PMID32047860
PMCPMC6997363

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.