ReviewJMIR mHealth and uHealth2020
Analysis of Secure Apps for Daily Clinical Use by German Orthopedic Surgeons: Searching for the "Needle in a Haystack".
Review in JMIR mHealth and uHealth, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 6 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- The Mobile Patient Information Assistant (PIA) App during the Inpatient Surgical Hospital Stay: Evaluation of Usability and Patient Approval.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Review
- Acceptance, Barriers, and Future Preferences of Mobile Health Among Patients Receiving Trauma and Orthopedic Surgical Care: Paper-Based Survey in a Prospective Multicenter Study.JMIR mHealth and uHealth · 2021Article
- Smartphone and App Usage in Orthopedics and Trauma Surgery: Survey Study of Physicians Regarding Acceptance, Risks, and Future Prospects in Germany.JMIR formative research · 2020Article
- [Digitalization in orthopedics and trauma surgery: current status of clinical and practical aspects 2020].Der Unfallchirurg · 2020Review
- An Image-Based Mobile Health App for Postdrainage Monitoring: Usability Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIt is undeniable that appropriate smartphone apps offer enormous opportunities for dealing with future challenges in orthopedic surgery and public health, in general. However, it is still unclear how the apps currently available in the two major app stores can be used in daily clinical routine by German orthopedic surgeons.
objectiveThis study aimed to gain evidence regarding the quantity and quality of apps available in the two major app stores and their suitability for use by orthopedic surgeons in Germany.
methodsWe conducted a systematic, keyword-based app store screening to obtain evidence concerning the quantity and quality of commercially available apps. Apps that met the inclusion criteria were evaluated using the app synopsis-checklist for users and the German Mobile App Rating Scale for secure use, trustworthiness, and quality.
resultsThe investigation revealed serious shortcomings regarding legal and medical aspects. Furthermore, most apps turned out to be useless and unsuitable for the clinical field of application (4242/4249, 99.84%). Finally, 7 trustworthy and high-quality apps (7/4249, 0.16%) offering secure usage in the daily clinical routine of orthopedists were identified. These apps mainly focused on education (5/7). None of them were CE (Conformité Européenne) certified. Moreover, there are no studies providing evidence that these apps have any positive use whatsoever.
conclusionsThe data obtained in our study suggest that the number of trustworthy and high-quality apps on offer is extremely low. Nowadays, finding appropriate apps in the fast-moving, complex, dynamic, and rudimentarily controlled app stores is most challenging. Promising approaches, for example, systematic app store screenings, app-rating developments, reviews or app libraries, and the creation of consistent standards have been established. However, further efforts are necessary to ensure that these innovative mobile health apps not only provide the correct information but are also safe to use in daily clinical practice.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.